Healer or Heavy melee (3.5)

[Margon84]

I play with an inexperienced group who all wanna play damage classes. We have a ranger a rogue and a monk + me. Up till now I've been playing a druid as the party's healer, but they get hit for more damage in a round then I can cure. The rogue doesn't flank and therefore does not sneak attack, and has been one shot by nasties when scouting because she never declared she was moving silently.

The monk is probably the highest AC character and the only one in the party who has not died yet, because she is generally where I focus my heals. She doesn't trip attack to control the enemies, so intelligent foes charge around killing whoever is the best target (read me, the healer). We have no arcane caster to crowd control, battlefield control, or debuff foes.

In fact in our first campaign the only reason we even won the last encounter is because in the second round of combat the DM rolled three nat 1's in a row and hence the BBEG shot himself in the foot with his Crossbow of Concussive Force whilst we were battling on a ledge over a pit that lead to Gehenna, and was blown into another plane (robbing us of loots as well!)

So my question is this, would it serve the party better if I changed characters to a more heavy melee character who specializes in tripping with a reach weapon? I can't be healing a monk and rogue getting hit every round for 20-30 points of damage when they only have 40-60 hp. I've read that a good bf controller can almost negate the need for a healer, is this viable?

[Myou]

Seems like the other players don't know much about optimising their characters or what their classes' strengths and weaknesses are. Perhaps you should show them a few guides on the subject.

That or just go Codzilla.

I'd say more melee classes are the last thing your party needs, and casters do a lot of good battlefield control with the right spells. (I'd say battlefield control would help a lot, yes.)

[Lappy9000]

Take Brew Potion as a feat so you can make sure you've got plenty of ackup healz.

Optimization/Tactics Advice: Ranger and Monk charge in, Rogue needs to actually use those flanks to get in some massive Sneak Attack damage. Suggest that the rogue puts plenty or ranks into Tumble to get around and behind enemies.

Don't go CoDzilla, 'cause from the sound of things, you'd completely dominate the entire campaign. Without an arcane caster, or the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells, you may want to take Brew Potion to make sure you've got planty of healz. Ranger should prepare things like Entangle to help during the fighting, while you should focus on the healing/buffs with some control for whatever spell slots you have left.

What level are you guys? If the Monk has a higher AC than everyone else, surely something is going wrong here.

[Myou]

Don't go CoDzilla,

*Rolls eyes.*

That was a joke.

[Adumbration]

I think you should invest in wands of Cure light wounds or Lesser Vigor. With those you won't have to invest all your spells per day in healing spells, and use spells such as Entangle.

[Tsotha-lanti]

*Rolls eyes.*

That was a joke.

{Scrubbed}

Margon84: The problem is the group, and you can't carry them on your own, unless you play, say, a druid (which would actually work nicely; modest healing, a tank of your own to keep the enemies off you, incredible melee ability at will, and full casting, which is the ultimate power).

Work on tactics. Even idiots can understand basic tactics. A rogue is pointless without flanking. A monk is even more pointless without tripping (especially since Improved Trip gives you an attack afterwards).

Also, why is the DM so obviously hard on you people? What's the point of the game if the PCs just die all over the place?

[Grail]

Seems like the other players don't know much about optimising their characters or what their classes' strengths and weaknesses are.

Playing should not be about optimization. The rest of this comment is good though. Knowing what the character (not so much the class) can do is good, and you should take it upon yourself to become like a battlefield commander for them.

However, you need to let them make mistakes. It is how people learn the best.

[Suedars]

Playing should not be about optimization. The rest of this comment is good though. Knowing what the character (not so much the class) can do is good, and you should take it upon yourself to become like a battlefield commander for them.

However, you need to let them make mistakes. It is how people learn the best.

Optimization doesn't have to be Pun-pun. It can be as simple as "rogues do best when they aren't tanking, so should build around avoiding taking hits."

[Myou]

Your delivery sucks.

Or perhaps it just wasn't to your sense of humor.


Playing should not be about optimization. The rest of this comment is good though. Knowing what the character (not so much the class) can do is good, and you should take it upon yourself to become like a battlefield commander for them.

However, you need to let them make mistakes. It is how people learn the best.

Playing is about optimising. I'm not talking about making batman wizards or anything, I'm talking about not taking six crafting feats with a sorcerer, multiclassing to fighter1/ranger1/rogue1/cleric1/druid1/wizard1/barbarian1/monk1/bard1 or playing a barbarian skillmonkey.

Every time you choose one feat over another, prepare one spell over another, or buy one item over another you're helping optimise your character. If you don't do any optimising you get characters that drop like flies, which is the problem the OP faces - they're doing so badly that he can't heal them fast enough.

Edit: Suedars beat me to it and was more succinct to boot.

[Grail]

That is not optimization.



1. the fact of optimizing; making the best of anything.
2. the condition of being optimized.
n. The procedure or procedures used to make a system or design as effective or functional as possible, especially the mathematical techniques involved.


What your talking about isn't optimization. If you are optimizing then you are technically building characters without any mechanical flaws or rendering them as insignificant as the system allows. Don't use a term if you do not understand the term.

What you are talking about would be more akin to something such as good design or understanding what your characters goal in the group is. A good design need not be optimal. Infact, it isn't because you can obviously do better than good. If you were to ask your significant other how your last date went and they just said "good" you'd be a little put off.

I run games for people who are both optimizers and who are not. Funny thing is that the optimizers actually tend to be the worst players. They don't understand what their character is supposed to do in game, but put them into a mechanical simulation of anything and their characters are topline.

[Myou]

That is not optimization.



What your talking about isn't optimization. If you are optimizing then you are technically building characters without any mechanical flaws or rendering them as insignificant as the system allows. Don't use a term if you do not understand the term.

What you are talking about would be more akin to something such as good design or understanding what your characters goal in the group is. A good design need not be optimal. Infact, it isn't because you can obviously do better than good. If you were to ask your significant other how your last date went and they just said "good" you'd be a little put off.

I run games for people who are both optimizers and who are not. Funny thing is that the optimizers actually tend to be the worst players. They don't understand what their character is supposed to do in game, but put them into a mechanical simulation of anything and their characters are topline.

It's an expression. In terms of D&D you could fully optimise your character, but people often talk about 'a little optimisation' or even use the word simply to mean 'improve', a pattern of speech common throughout English.

{Scrubbed}

[ZeroNumerous]

1. the fact of optimizing; making the best of anything.
2. the condition of being optimized.
n. The procedure or procedures used to make a system or design as effective or functional as possible, especially the mathematical techniques involved.

Barbarian: "Hello. I am very good at hitting things. But I also want to do more damage. How do I do this?."
DM: "Well, then you should take Power Attack, use a greatsword, and charge for +0/4 attack/damage. Or flank and then use Power Attack constantly for the best results."

Now, what happened in the above situation? The barbarian wanted to capitalize on his class' ability to hit things, because barbarians are good at hitting things. So the DM gave him suggestions toward that angle. The DM tried to optimize his ability to hurt things. This is a procedure used to make a system(the barbarian hitting) as effective as possible. In closing:


Don't use a term if you do not understand the term.

[/petty squabbling] - Thanks Myou :smalltongue:

OP: You should probably explain to your fellow party members about how to use their abilities to the maximum(give the ranger a bow, get the rogue to flank, have the monk.. uh.. Do stuff, I guess). Then write down "Unless specified otherwise always assume I'm using Hide and Move Silently by taking ten on both." on a piece of paper and hand it to the rogue. Problem(sorta) solved.

[Grail]

{Scrubbed}

[Myou]

{Scrubbed}

[Grail]

{Scrubbed}

[Cubey]

To prevent is better than to cure.

So, you can play a cleric, and even a support one and not a self-buffing CoDzilla. But you have to do it more efficiently - healing spells are usually a poor choice to cast during combat, this is not WoW. It is better to buff your party members with spells that increase AC or grant temporary hitpoints. That way they won't get hit that much and will require less healing.
As for healing itself, buy a cheap wand of Cure Light Wounds and use that. After a fight.

And obviously, tell other players to play smarter. It's not about optimizing your build, it's about using their class features. You noticed what they do wrong already, so tell them to get better.

[Inyssius Tor]

lots of words

Yes, yes, nobody cares.


Playing smart is not optimization.

Optimization is the art of making a character mechanically flawless.

Taking power attack for a fighter is not optimization.

By your definition, using a magical sword and carrying a silver dagger is optimization, and I hardly think that is true.
And we think that you are wrong and it is true. Proof by assertion doesn't work. If you're willing to argue that... we can assert louder than you can, because there are more of us. If you'd like to use logic... go ahead, we're listening, but ZeroNumerous already explained how the dictionary you quoted actually supports the side you don't support.

[Keld Denar]

Stormwind Falacy much? Go google it, or someone will link it, but either way, read up on it. A wiser man than you put it together. The basic jist, is that optimization and skill at roleplaying and character immersion are two independant things, not corrilating axes on a graph. That is to say, as optimization of build and tactics increases, abilty to roleplay does NOT decrease. In fact, they are in no means related to each other at all. Sure, you have a few, as you say, munchkins, who salivate at the thought of a +80 godslaying pocketwatch of doom. Munchkins tend not to have a good grasp on the rules though, and try to imitate rules knowledge with rule abuse. Most of the matured skilled optimizers I know are also excellent RPers. Sure, it doesn't take much skill to pick Power Attack over Toughness, but to build a mechanically solid character that is capable at filling their chosen role isn't terribly easy (barring druid20).

And there is also the difference between Theoretical Optimization and Practical Optimization, which used to have 2 seperate boards over on the WotC forums. TO is optimization for optimization sake. A mental experiment to see just what is possible within the limit of the rules. Then there is Practical Optimization, which is making mechanically strong characters within a certain subset of guidelines. The primary of those guidelines is to not get the DMG thrown at you. I can build an optimized wizard who buffs his allies, debuffs his enemies, helps his allies get into position, and summons creatures to soak up hits so his allies don't have to. Or I can grab 10 levels of Incantrix, take Arcane Thesis: Enervation, and throw out ~200 negative levels a round, no save. Is one better than the other? Sure, it kills stuff very fast. Is it going to be allowed by any sane DM? Probably not, since it reduces combat to a d20 roll to see who goes first, and that isn't fun.

Thus, optimization has to be tempered. We can't all play the Hulking Hurler, Pun-Pun, or Chuck the Ruby Knight Windicator, that just ruins everyone's fun, including your own.

[ericgrau]

I play with an inexperienced group who all wanna play damage classes. We have a ranger a rogue and a monk + me. Up till now I've been playing a druid as the party's healer, but they get hit for more damage in a round then I can cure. The rogue doesn't flank and therefore does not sneak attack, and has been one shot by nasties when scouting because she never declared she was moving silently.

The monk is probably the highest AC character and the only one in the party who has not died yet, because she is generally where I focus my heals. She doesn't trip attack to control the enemies, so intelligent foes charge around killing whoever is the best target (read me, the healer). We have no arcane caster to crowd control, battlefield control, or debuff foes.

In fact in our first campaign the only reason we even won the last encounter is because in the second round of combat the DM rolled three nat 1's in a row and hence the BBEG shot himself in the foot with his Crossbow of Concussive Force whilst we were battling on a ledge over a pit that lead to Gehenna, and was blown into another plane (robbing us of loots as well!)

So my question is this, would it serve the party better if I changed characters to a more heavy melee character who specializes in tripping with a reach weapon? I can't be healing a monk and rogue getting hit every round for 20-30 points of damage when they only have 40-60 hp. I've read that a good bf controller can almost negate the need for a healer, is this viable?

Wow, talk about optimization issues. Okay, one at a time.

Druid: You can typically do more by attacking the baddies instead of healing. Save your highest level healing for emergencies; when someone might get knocked out. Save lower level healing for between between combats only, usually via a cure light wounds wand so you can save spell slots for other things. Besides damage, druids have some good battlefield control spells, btw. Wizards/sorcerors have even better spells for both. A fighter's battlefield control is secondary to his melee fighting.

Rogue: Rogues are not main combatants. Period. Even if he was pulling of sneak attacks, like he should. Their AB, AC & HP are way too low. He (and often the DM too) should learn the skill rules and learn how to be effective there. Secondary to that, he should be pulling ranged sneak attack(s) against monsters that haven't acted yet in the first round (they're flat-footed). Then a rogue typically tumbles & flanks for melee sneak attack or if in danger hides in back with a bow.

Monk: Monks are not major damage dealers. A full BAB class with a weapon will do more. If anything, this guy should be handling martial battlefield control since he gets feats for it starting at level one. And he can flurry the attempts: they are attack actions, and work unarmed or with monk weapons. And even if he wants to deal unarmed damage, guess what, both his first level feat options also deal unarmed damage. It's also odd that he has the highest AC, though semi-plausible since everyone else has light armor. He really should be pumping strength for AB & damage, not wis/dex. Or possibly dex if he takes weapon finesse/stunning fist/disarm (grapple/trip requires strength). A monk pumping wis is like putting an 18 in int for skill points. Huh? What? Okay, ya it kinda helps, but no, that's too much.

Every player: The reason they're taking so much damage is b/c they all have light armor (or the equivalent, for the monk). Only 1 has full BAB. Not a one is a serious focused combatant. Every single one is a mixed warrior/skillmonkey. A fighter, barbarian or paladin would be far more powerful. But rather than changing the whole party, I suggest the whole group - including the DM - learn the skill rules really well. That means every use of each skill, their DCs and the general stuff: taking a 10, taking a 20 and there are no nat 1's/20's. Next have the whole party sneak around a lot of encounters instead of fighting everything (hint: this is where taking a 10 is critical). Mobility skills may help too. Pick off stragglers when possible. This means you'll have to become a skillmonkey as well, or be a caster with the right stealth spells. Or if that's too much trouble to learn, try to get everyone to play one of the 3 real martial classes, not some wannabes. You could start one yourself, if you need to convince them. I suggest a barbarian or fighter w/ fighter tree feats for simplicity & to avoid common mistakes.

For added defense, the rogue can wield a mithril buckler (no armor check penalty = no non-proficiency penalty), the ranger can use a bow and the monk can disable his enemies with battlefield control. Meleeing targets that can't melee back very well works too. For everyone, a mix of weak AC items will be cheaper & stronger than putting a big enchant on a single major item.

On the optimization debate: I hate munchkining as much/more than anyone. But playing so poorly that you aren't even doing what your class is good at or meant for is so bad that it actually hurts the game. Roleplaying is helped, if anything, by actually playing to your class abilities (compared to ignoring them completely). It causes in-character/out-of-character strategy to match up for a more immersive experience. Munchkinning to the point where your actions are totally implausible - e.g., combining things in a way that only makes sense in game terms - OTOH, hurts roleplaying.

[Charlie Kemek]

If the rogue is in melee often, you might consider switching him to the thug sneak attack fighter variant. gets sneak attack, somewhat decent skills, good bab, but a LOT more hp.

[Curmudgeon]

If the rogue is in melee often, you might consider switching him to the thug sneak attack fighter variant. gets sneak attack, somewhat decent skills, good bab, but a LOT more hp. Just to make things clear, you're actually referring to two different variants from Unearthed Arcana here: the Thug (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug) and Sneak Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter) Fighter options.

Compared to an actual Rogue you're quite low on skills but high on hit points. You lose all the Rogue class features except for sneak attack, but gain martial weapon proficiency.

In general I think this is a losing proposition. But it might work OK for a player who's inclined to get into melee a lot -- if they learn to make use of sneak attack.

[Lappy9000]

Good optimization advice.
Ericgrau's got a point. I once DM'd for a party that consisted of a Bard, a Ranger, a Rogue, and a Barbarian. Despite the lack of full-casters, the party did quite well. They normally stocked up on healing potions (although a wand prolly would have been a better idea) prior to a battle. In combat, the Bard would make copious use of Save-Or-Suck spells and things like Grease, while the Ranger (bow'n'arrow style) backed up the Barbarian from a slight distance, and providing minor healing when things got tough. Barbarian did what Barbarians do and just crashed into opponents with the rogue following just behind him to make use of the flanks.

I found it as an example where a bunch of skill-monkey classes can do just fine, however, they did have a true melee character; one thing that your group lacks. Bring another friend to play a Barbarian, or hire some warriors, perchance?

[PinkysBrain]

Until you get the spell Heal you shouldn't be doing too much healing in combat.

Do you have augmented summoning on your druid? How about you help the rogue flank? How about you help control the battlefield with summons to grapple foes? (With the help of Animal Growth.) They will still be doing the damage, but a druid is perfectly capable of controlling the battlefield.

[Eldariel]

One thing you should keep in mind as a Druid are your spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally-spells. Summon Nature's Ally IV can summon an Unicorn, which is a real healbot. It can go around doing in-combat healing while you're doing what you do best; kicking ass. Don't forget to cast Greater Magic Fang on you and your animal companion each morning (once you're high enough level to have higher bonuses, cast one per natural weapon) and when things get hairy, spread Barkskins around.

Make lots of use of Wildshape (ideally, the form you'd be using all adventuring day) and spells such as Entangle, Obscuring Mist and so on to minimize the damage the party takes. Most importantly though, go through the characters with the other players; tell them what the classes can do. If Rogue isn't flanking for Sneak Attack, chances are he doesn't either know how Sneak Attack works or how Flanking works. Since that's pretty pivotal to his character, I suggest simply explaining how it works. Also, Use Magic Device on the Rogue could be awesome (also, Potions are horribly expensive for their use and will result in worse equipment on party's part; I'd suggest never using potions as you've got two characters capable of using Wands/Scrolls in the party).

Monk should probably be taught combat maneuvers, since at least Tripping isn't BAB-related. Then again, I wonder if she has the stats to pull it off; you need high Str/Wis (since all PHB combat maneuvers are Str-derived and Stunning Fist is Wis-derived) to do anything but a bad-fighter Monk. Anyways, just explaining how to have the classes play into their strengths is a good starting point. Also, as has been said a few times, you'd be helping the party more by tanking than by healing. Do healing out of combat. In combat, a strong wildshape form combined by your animal companion both buffed up (with Monk's Belt on at least you; depends on animal companion how you should equip it) would mean far less damage to your party.

[Llama231]

I would suggest a melee oriented cleric with brew potion. Potions+Power Attack+Win.
Or just go CoDzilla.

[woodenbandman]

Take a level of cleric of some kind, go for DMM persist, and persist the various things that help people such as vigorous circle. Also save some turn undead attempts and go for Bite of the Foo so that you can make yourself invincible (like, literally, you will never be hit ever) so you can heal the party or have them hide behind you. Knockback might be prudent so that you can delay until after the party charges in, then lion's charge in and knock everyone back, and then the baddies come back and hit you.

[Artanis]

*stuff about optimization*
Guys, the Rogue doesn't even sneak attack. Seriously, optimization has nothing to do with it when we're working on "actually use your class's defining feature".

[Margon84]

Thanks for all the good advice, a few points I want to address directly:

1. This is not WoW, and you generally shouldn't be healing in combat unless its an emergency. This is really good advice as I am coming from WoW and was healing in combat.

2. My DM hasn't really been trying to kill us, he's been picking equal CR level monsters (we started the campaign at level 6 and are now 8), and hes been deliberately using things that aren't too tricksy like crocodiles, and undead (and a random encounter T-rex- thats the one that killed me). However because hes been picking simple foes alot of them have ridiculous strength scores, and with no high AC/high hp melee character they tend to 2-shot people.

3. Since it was an inexperienced group my DM asked if I wouldn't mind saving the group alot of time and paperwork by giving up the wildshape ability and animal companion for the Shapeshifter alternate class feature (I think from PHB II) where you get static buffs to your physical stats. Unfortunately this was a very poor choice, not only because the ability is worse than wildshape, but I had already dumped my physical stats at character creation(8 str, 10 dex, 12 con), expecially since our party had no front man with good social skills to address NPCs. +4 Str when your Str is 8 isn't that exciting at lvl 7.

So basically when I activate my Shapeshift combat form I am even weaker and squishier than the monk, and have no animal companion to back me up.

4. The ranger got into grad school and moved last week so my brother might be joining us as an arcane caster, so I showed him a wizard guide that focuses on the bf controller and debuffing spells.

5. I've been having a rough time with daily spell selection especially since our first campaign was almost entirely indoors so alot of my good spells like entangle weren't that useful. I do like the idea of using summon monster to help flank.

[Keld Denar]

4. The ranger got into grad school and moved last week so my brother might be joining us as an arcane caster, so I showed him a wizard guide that focuses on the bf controller and debuffing spells.

This, do this. Show him Treantmonk20's GOD guide. Its on the CharOp forums, and relatively easy to find. Just click on the top sticky thread (Some handy links), hit ctr + f, and search for GOD. Blocked to me, or I'd link it myself. A Focused Specialist (CM) Conjourer with a large number of fog and teleport spells, along with some buffs like Haste and Greater Magic Weapon (cast this one out of combat) will go a long ways to increasing your party effectiveness.


5. I've been having a rough time with daily spell selection especially since our first campaign was almost entirely indoors so alot of my good spells like entangle weren't that useful. I do like the idea of using summon monster to help flank.
Search that same link for summoning guides. SNA is a really strong spell, but some allies are stronger than others. Pound per pound, Hippogryphs are stronger than anything on the SNAII list, and getting multiple with a SNAIII or SNAIV is still a strong option. Elementals, specifically Earth and Air, are also decent choices.

Hope things get better!

[Eldariel]

3. Since it was an inexperienced group my DM asked if I wouldn't mind saving the group alot of time and paperwork by giving up the wildshape ability and animal companion for the Shapeshifter alternate class feature (I think from PHB II) where you get static buffs to your physical stats. Unfortunately this was a very poor choice, not only because the ability is worse than wildshape, but I had already dumped my physical stats at character creation(8 str, 10 dex, 12 con), expecially since our party had no front man with good social skills to address NPCs. +4 Str when your Str is 8 isn't that exciting at lvl 7.

So basically when I activate my Shapeshift combat form I am even weaker and squishier than the monk, and have no animal companion to back me up.

This is a fine choice for balance reasons, but if the party needs the Druid to carry the rest, he needs to be over the powercurve. So yea, with Shapeshift, you'll be no good as anything but a caster, with those stats at any rate. With the variant, you'll need to choose control spells to disable the opponent and use them along with summoning to get the job done. Also, you'd need to do some reworking with your stats to act as a decent melee character with the Shapeshift, much like a Cleric; 14 in Str and Con, and maybe 12 or so in Dex would be plenty, but that would mean dumping Cha and Int (which is normally no problem, but if the party also needed a face... Really, a gimped Druid cannot be a one-man party without insane stats unlike a normal Druid).

But Wildshape isn't that much extra bookkeeping to be honest; as long as you've got the Wildshape Str, Dex, Con, speed, size, NA and attacks (along with any related abilities you might acquire, such as Poison, Improved Grab or Pounce) of every form written as a list, you can easily just take any form and go from there. And Animal Companion is only really present in combat so it shouldn't make much difference in the combat speed.

[InkEyes]

If you can get your hands on the Tome of Battle, I'd recommend making a Crusader to play from here on out. They're great frontliners and heal their allies at the same time.

If you can't get access to the ToB (it's understandable since the book is... divisive to say the least) try playing a paladin; ideally either Fax's rebuild (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Paladin) or One Winged 4ngels' (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=761045).

[TempusCCK]

I don't like the Stormwind Fallacy much. I think that it's false because it ignores the fact that fighting style should be considered a part of roleplay. Mechanics should reflect what the characters abilities are, and those abilities should reflect what the characters concept is. Fantasy characters have individual style, no one fights exactly the same as anyone else.

Stormwind fallacy tries to divorce fluff from mechanics, I say, they go hand in hand.

The truest sense of this comes from people who may want to play a heavily armored fighter using two big morning stars, but instead realize that TWF is gimped, and churn out another two handed weapon fighter. Many times, for many people, optimization comes out as the more important factor, often even over character concept.

Take a look at the recent Marshal thread that was flying around. Guy wanted to be a battlefield leader in 3.5, and all that he got was suggestions to make a Crusader, a Paladin/Crusader, or just plain old vanilla "don't play that class, it sucks." Optimization sometimes hurts the character concept, which I believe is the more important part.

Down with Stormwind! Combat is roleplaying too!

[Blood_Lord]

Take a look at the recent Marshal thread that was flying around. Guy wanted to be a battlefield leader in 3.5, and all that he got was suggestions to make a Crusader, a Paladin/Crusader, or just plain old vanilla "don't play that class, it sucks." Optimization sometimes hurts the character concept, which I believe is the more important part.

Except the reason Crusader is suggested is because it fits the character concept of battlefield leader better then Marshal.

So they actually are putting the character concept ahead of the mechanics.

[Keld Denar]

Down with Stormwind! Combat is roleplaying too!

If someone said "I want to play a healer type character", would you recommend them to play the MH Healer class? No. Why? Because its INFERIOR IN ALMOST EVERY WAY compared to a cleric. Can a Healer prevent injury by buffing party members? No. Can a Healer deal with undead? No. Can a Healer even spontaneously convert prepared spells to cures? NO! So, would you recommend it? Not unless the player was specifically looking to be challenged, and wanted to try it out for grins and giggles.

Same with a Samurai. Like Miko, a player who wants to play a "Samurai" need not have ANY LEVELS IN SAMURAI. Why? Because Samurai is just one of the casualties of poor game design. Its that bad. You'd be better off as a straight class Fighter, and thats not saying much. You'd be even better off playing as a Warblade, which would cover some of your weaknesses, give you interesting and fun combat tactics, and not be horribly bland and underpowered mechanically. RP wise, you run your character as a Samurai, living by a code of conduct and being honorable and all that other crap. THAT is what Stormwind Fallacy is about. Take a concept, RP-wise, and then back it up with a mechanical build that makes it fun to do more than just sit around and suck in combat.

So, if the OP of that thread wants to play a battlefield leader, like a Marshal, but Marshal is pretty terribad on its own, would you recommend something that both has better mechanical options for buffing team members, as well as its own ability to kick a little butt. Because seriously, speeches and whatnot aside, people follow leaders who are strong, and people who inspire them. Running up to someone and smacking them so hard with a White Raven Hammer that you knock them senseless for a round is pretty damn inspiring, if you ask me. You don't encourage people with "play what you want, it doesn't matter if you suck" because that often turns people off from the game. Play something that is fun, both mechanically and RP wise, and you will have a fulfilling and complete game experience, instead of being the one who always goes to pick up the pizza every time a combat breaks out, because you don't do anything other than provide auras to everyone else. And don't give me the whole "you can use feats to make up for it" because you don't get enough feats like a fighter to get into the really cool stuff until after its not effective anymore, and feats do not make up for the total lack of active class features. Everyone gets feats.

Marshal comes from a book (Mini Handbook) that was primarily ment for combat in a world where complex maneuvers don't exist. It was designed weak. Thats just the way it is. Get over it. Unless you are really looking for a way to challenge yourself, it is a class that is only about 3 levels long. Get the good stuff, and move onto something that is stronger, more useful, or more mechanically sound. A character doesn't know what class levels they have. A build is more than the sum of its parts.


The truest sense of this comes from people who may want to play a heavily armored fighter using two big morning stars, but instead realize that TWF is gimped, and churn out another two handed weapon fighter. Many times, for many people, optimization comes out as the more important factor, often even over character concept.

Actually, you COULD build such a character, but Fighter is not the way to do it. I'd recommend a Bardblade base, or possibly a Cleric base using Knowledge Devotion. Granted, Morning Stars aren't the most optimial weapon to use, but you could make it work better than ZOMGFIGHTER20 CAUSE I FIGHT STUFF. That has about as much flavor as playing a Lightning Warrior (see thread for lulz). Classes =! character.

And, to actually contribute something to this thread, I agree with what some of the other posters posted. See if you can help the other posters to try to focus on tactics. Flanking isn't exactly a difficult concept to teach. You can buff the Monk with Greater Magic Fang and Barkskin, and maybe he'll be able to contribute better. Later in life, Fires of Purity is an amazing single target buff you can cast on the Monk that will probably double his damage.

BTW, would and of the others be interested in a mechanical makeover? I'm sure if the DM and players approve, the combined might of this forum can beef up your friends characters a bit to make them a bit stronger while keeping the same "monk" and "rogue" feel, especially if you have access to Tome of Battle.

[PinkysBrain]

Take a look at the recent Marshal thread that was flying around. Guy wanted to be a battlefield leader in 3.5, and all that he got was suggestions to make a Crusader, a Paladin/Crusader, or just plain old vanilla "don't play that class, it sucks." Optimization sometimes hurts the character concept, which I believe is the more important part.
How is "I want to play class X" a character concept?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil and friendly in here.