My issue with Tome of Battle

[Aldizog]

Okay, I didn't want to derail the "favorite 3.5 book" thread with this, so I'm posting it separately.

I see a lot of love for ToB. And that is a book which I will never forgive for introducing a fighter that fights better than the fighter. As soon as I heard fans raving about how much better warblades were than fighters, I refused to even consider using it. It just struck me as bad design. As good as ToB may have been in and of itself, I don't agree with its integration into the existing system.

This seems to have been a pattern with 3.5. Why did they not errata the classes they thought were too weak, instead of introducing superior replacements for the fighter and monk? Why did they not errata Toughness to be Improved Toughness? Why did they not errata the Eldritch Knight instead of adding a half-dozen more-powerful gish PrCs? Why leave the game cluttered with the corpses of these now-obselete options?

If the creators really wanted to experiment with new mechanics with ToB as part of their 4E research, couldn't they have boosted the fighter so it wasn't left in the dust? The fighter could have used a few more high-level-fighter-only feats. We got a few in PHBII (Weapon Supremacy and the ACFs), but from what I hear, still not enough to compete with the warblade.

Fixable in house rules by having the fighter mug the other martial classes for things like Mettle and Thicket of Blades as high-level fighter feats, I suppose. To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?

[Inhuman Bot]

Well, IMO at least, so much errata would be needed that WotC might as well make new classes instead. ohwait.

[Fax Celestis]

Tacking a system onto the side of an existing class is a lot harder than you seem to be making it out to be.

[Fluffles]

Theres not really anything you can do for a fighter besides give it more feats and the Weapon Focus/Specialization feats for free.

[Edea]

Packaging it as 'brand new' sells better.

[Myrmex]

This seems to have been a pattern with 3.5. Why did they not errata the classes they thought were too weak, instead of introducing superior replacements for the fighter and monk? Why did they not errata Toughness to be Improved Toughness? Why did they not errata the Eldritch Knight instead of adding a half-dozen more-powerful gish PrCs? Why leave the game cluttered with the corpses of these now-obselete options?

When was the last time you paid for errata?

[Starbuck_II]

If the creators really wanted to experiment with new mechanics with ToB as part of their 4E research, couldn't they have boosted the fighter so it wasn't left in the dust? The fighter could have used a few more high-level-fighter-only feats. We got a few in PHBII (Weapon Supremacy and the ACFs), but from what I hear, still not enough to compete with the warblade.

Fixable in house rules by having the fighter mug the other martial classes for things like Mettle and Thicket of Blades as high-level fighter feats, I suppose. To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?

The only way to fix the fighter is not have be what it was.

Feats do not equal power. That is the issue.

So you'd have to have a non-feat as class feature fighter. Basically not a Fighter.

Second, Fighter is a mundane guy in a non-mundane world. Pretty weak from flavor-text alone.

Now, Fighters can take Martial Study/Stance was bonus feats. But can't recover them in battle.

Third, Fighters are blind/deaf and have low skill points/low variety in skills. ToB aren't low in skill points/have more variety in skills.

[Temet Nosce]

I use both the Fighter and the ToB classes. Are the ToB classes higher tier? Without a doubt, and they also don't really need optimization to function well in most games. Still, the Fighter functions differently from them and it's perfectly possible to make a useful build with a little effort.

[Aldizog]

My thought was that adding some of the better abilities from other martial classes or PrCs as high-level fighter abilities would have gone a long way to keeping it relevant.

As soon as you introduce a new "Thicket of Blades" ability in your brand-new class, you add a line "Thicket of Blades is also available as a bonus feat to a fighter of level 10 or higher."
As soon as you introduce a new "Mettle" ability in your brand-new class, you add "Mettle is available as a bonus feat to a fighter of level 12 or higher."

The fighter class is completely flexible and one of the easiest to modify. All you have to do is introduce new fighter-only feats.

[Gnaeus]

It is the tactical options.

A well built Fighter/Barbarian can do as much or more damage than a warblade or crusader. But the fight has to be his kind of toe to toe fight for this to work. A martial adept can do strikes that heal allies or bypass DR. They can teleport across the battlefield or become invisible. They can make concentration checks in place of saves, or shrug off adverse conditions. And they can shift their readied abilities from day to day or faster (Hmm, Golems...I'll take the DR bypassing power...Drow today, lets take the stuff that helps me make saves. )

Maybe if all fighter feats worked like the Chameleon feat, so you could readjust your fighter every morning?

[Fax Celestis]

Fixable in house rules by having the fighter mug the other martial classes for things like Mettle and Thicket of Blades as high-level fighter feats, I suppose. To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?

In all seriousness, to be competitive with non-TOB classes, he needs more skill points, unique abilities, defenses against spellcasting/supernatural/elemental abilities, special fighter-only tricks that don't consume feat slots to acquire, less MAD and/or the ability to gain combat benefit from more than just Str, and the ability to draw fire.

ToB solves each of these issues handily. Fixing the fighter to meet these lines would take so much effort, it would frankly just look like a Warblade when you were done.

[Lycanthromancer]

Well, for one, whoever was going to overhaul the fighter would've had to come up with a huge list of new fighter-only feats that are above and beyond anything the fighter currently gets (due to laws of diminishing returns, non-scaling feats, and the difficulty in fighters being able to adapt to situations that don't require "I hit it with a stick" as a primary strategy), they would've had to fill in the 9 dead-levels of the fighter, they would've had to overhaul the combat system (due to the fact that so many martial strategies quickly become nigh-useless), they would've had to make medium armor and tower shields useful, they'd have to give the fighter a bunch of out-of-combat utility, additional skill points, and lots of additional class skills.

So, basically, a class that is nearly unrecognizable as "a fighter," and one that would've taken up a third of an entire book by itself.

Monks and paladins would require similar amounts of work.

So...basically...you'd need ToB anyway, just to fix the problems inherent in the system.

[Myrmex]

Even then, there's no way to pay for the kind of overhaul fighters need without packaging & selling it.

[Starbuck_II]

My thought was that adding some of the better abilities from other martial classes or PrCs as high-level fighter abilities would have gone a long way to keeping it relevant.

As soon as you introduce a new "Thicket of Blades" ability in your brand-new class, you add a line "Thicket of Blades is also available as a bonus feat to a fighter of level 10 or higher."
As soon as you introduce a new "Mettle" ability in your brand-new class, you add "Mettle is available as a bonus feat to a fighter of level 12 or higher."

The fighter class is completely flexible and one of the easiest to modify. All you have to do is introduce new fighter-only feats.

But... Thicket of Blades is a Bonus feat of Fighter. Martial Stance... are we reading the same book?
Choose martial study: any devoted spirit maneiver.
Now, at level 10 (fighter) ot level 12 (non-fighter), take Martial Stance: Thicket of Blades.

Is the book hard to read?

[Fax Celestis]

But... Thicket of Blades is a Bonus feat of Fighter. Martial Stance... are we reading the same book?
Choose martial study: any devoted spirit maneiver.
Now, at level 10 (fighter) ot level 12 (non-fighter), take Martial Stance: Thicket of Blades.

Is the book hard to read?

Well, he admitted he never read it because the idea of someone fighting better than the fighter disgusted him.

[Catch]

To extrapolate your argument further (and maybe summarize it), why did WotC release 4E instead of fixing 3.5?

Because, as Will Smith so blithely said, the new hotness is better than what's old and busted. All those ToB fans are happy because the cruddy old Fighter and Monk, basically icons for D&D fail, were replaced with something new and flashy. People like new classes, spells, feats and supplements, and gamers look forward to publications so they can introduce new options into their game. Additionally, the gulf between spellcasting and melee was becoming a point of contention, so Wizards tried something new because of demand. WotC happens to like making new systems (and selling them), and it worked out pretty well.

See, 3.5 is not World of Warcraft. The big, looming corporation isn't going to release buff and nerf patches, but you're free to change it yourself. There are going to be clunkers in the rules, but the OGL opens the door for you to add or remove whatever you see fit. You're not forced to play "their game" and you shouldn't expect every rulebook to be tailored to your game.

Also, don't you feel a little silly laying into a book you've never given a fair shake?

[Myrmex]

WotC focuses on selling expensive items to compulsive collectors with large disposable incomes.

It's their market strategy.

[streakster]

Actually, if you think about i, it really is an errata. They just kept the old fighter around to avoid scads of angry email.

EDIT: And of course he outfights the fighter. Everything outfights the fighter. That's the problem.

[Aldizog]

But... Thicket of Blades is a Bonus feat of Fighter. Martial Stance... are we reading the same book?
Choose martial study: any devoted spirit maneiver.
Now, at level 10 (fighter) ot level 12 (non-fighter), take Martial Stance: Thicket of Blades.

Is the book hard to read?

Oops, meant Bulwark of Defense. I get them mixed up.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Okay, I didn't want to derail the "favorite 3.5 book" thread with this, so I'm posting it separately.

I see a lot of love for ToB. And that is a book which I will never forgive for introducing a fighter that fights better than the fighter.
You probably aren't going to like the PHB for introducing the Barbarian, then.


As soon as I heard fans raving about how much better warblades were than fighters, I refused to even consider using it. It just struck me as bad design. As good as ToB may have been in and of itself, I don't agree with its integration into the existing system.

Shouldn't you read the book before judging it? Or are research and fact checking not needed in this age of science and technology?


This seems to have been a pattern with 3.5. Why did they not errata the classes they thought were too weak, instead of introducing superior replacements for the fighter and monk?
Fighter and Monk were fundamentally flawed. They'd have had to issue errata completely re-writing the classes instead of patching over a few rough spots.

[Woodsman]

Oops, meant Bulwark of Defense. I get them mixed up.

... Isn't that a knight class feature? :smallconfused:

[Catch]

WotC focuses on selling expensive items to compulsive collectors with large disposable incomes.

It's their market strategy.

You're thinking of Games Workshop.

[FMArthur]

Hmm... what if we gave the fighter all of the exclusively fighter-only feats for free as soon as it qualifies? Those are made to scale with level like real class features, but are not enough to trade for your only other feature: feats. So give them for free.

[Starbuck_II]

Oops, meant Bulwark of Defense. I get them mixed up.

But that is a epic feat...
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Bulwark_of_Defense

[Aldizog]

To extrapolate your argument further (and maybe summarize it), why did WotC release 4E instead of fixing 3.5?
In part, a new design team has something to do with it. But, yes, money is a large part of it. I do feel it would have been better "product support" to issue a patch. No, I wouldn't have paid for errata. But it might have made me more willing to stay on board with whatever WotC planned to do next, knowing that they would actually support their products.

[Aldizog]

But that is a epic feat...
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Bulwark_of_Defense
I meant the knight class feature. Which is the kind of tactical option that the fighter probably should have, and which ToB classes do have.

[Paulus]

What saddens me about Tob an 4e is all the gains they leave behind. Different groups contradicting each other each and every book. There is almost no cohesion, and that makes me feel like the glory days of D&D as it has always been known are slowly fading away. They made such great leaps towards originality, openness, and freedom, and then took them away for the 'new hotness'.

I would have been perfectly happy if they did a D&D ultimate addition that fixed every single flaw in 3.5, instead of revamping all of it. That would have been a 4E I would have welcomed. Instead, the direction changed, and for some reason, stepped away from everything Gygax and his fellows sought to create.

Could it have used the new blood? Certainly. But... In different source book system, like Iccarnum, like ToB, let them be 'add ons' or different ways. Viable to work with official D&D without loosing the dream! I hear all of these old stories about the glorious fun of D&D and I want THAT. I WANT a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Rogue to dungeon crawl and face the Dragon, That's DUNGEONS and DRAGONS. at least. it is to me.

but the only remnant left is the Wizard, who was able to adapt via better spells. Why couldn't they do that for feats to keep the fighter relevant? It just... it just saddens me. And No matter what anyone says, every time I look at it, no matter how I look at it.

It's just not my D&D. but, that's just me I guess. So I'll stick with 3.5, flaws and all.

[streakster]

I meant the knight class feature. Which is the kind of tactical option that the fighter probably should have, and which ToB classes do have.

The fighter does have it. Martial Study and Stance are fighter bonus feats.

EDIT: That is, he has the option that the ToB classes have. That was poorly worded there.

EDIT2: That is, that was poorly worded on my part.

EDIT3: Me mean me write bad.

[Woodsman]

I meant the knight class feature. Which is the kind of tactical option that the fighter probably should have, and which ToB classes do have.

No ToB class can do that.

[Starbuck_II]

Plus, if they Made the Knight (who is in PHB 2 not ToB)'s class features feats: that makes him just as bad as Complete Warrior Samurai. Really, that was CW Sam's main issues: all of his class features were feats.
In fact, CW introduced better class features (Kai scaring abilities) than Samurai could do.


If you make the Fighter get everyone class features as feats: what point would you have to play another class.

A Prc has that ability of difficuly terrain : Deepstone Sentinel makes all area around him difficulty terrain.

[Tavar]

I meant the knight class feature. Which is the kind of tactical option that the fighter probably should have, and which ToB classes do have.
The problem with that is that the fighter is just really badly designed. It doesn't have enough feats to trade each one for a seperate class feature, and any other system would require the desiners of a new class to work out a custom chart specifically for a fighter who wants to trade out feats for class features. Plus, you'd probably end up with multiple charts for each class. Or you could just say "yeah, the fighter was a mistake, here's a fix". Which is what they did. And people still complain that they should have just fixed the fighter. How? How could they have done it an had it remain the fighter?


Oh, and you should use the edit button, instead of double posting.

[Myrmex]

In part, a new design team has something to do with it. But, yes, money is a large part of it. I do feel it would have been better "product support" to issue a patch. No, I wouldn't have paid for errata. But it might have made me more willing to stay on board with whatever WotC planned to do next, knowing that they would actually support their products.

Producing errata costs money. If you want something for free, do it yourself or ask the internet. Or start shoplifting, I guess.


Instead, the direction changed, and for some reason, stepped away from everything Gygax and his fellows sought to create.

Thank GOD for that. Have you ever played anything truly Gygaxian? It's brutal, and weird. And brutal.


Viable to work with official D&D without loosing the dream! I hear all of these old stories about the glorious fun of D&D and I want THAT. I WANT a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Rogue to dungeon crawl and face the Dragon, That's DUNGEONS and DRAGONS. at least. it is to me.

You can do that just fine in 4e. Better, even.


but the only remnant left is the Wizard, who was able to adapt via better spells. Why couldn't they do that for feats to keep the fighter relevant? It just... it just saddens me. And No matter what anyone says, every time I look at it, no matter how I look at it.

It's just not my D&D. but, that's just me I guess. So I'll stick with 3.5, flaws and all.

That's all it really is. I'm the same. I think it's a gorgeous system, but it feels way too much like playing a videogame. I like the incredible modularity of 3rd edition, and the "sky's the limit" design.

[Aldizog]

You probably aren't going to like the PHB for introducing the Barbarian, then.
Hasn't been the case in the 3 campaigns of 3.5 I've been in. Barbarians generally end up being pincushions compared to fighters, and fights often outlast the rage (especially those with enemies arriving in waves, a favorite of many DMs).



Shouldn't you read the book before judging it? Or are research and fact checking not needed in this age of science and technology?
No, my issue is more the way in which the product was integrated into 3.5, rather than its inherent quality. I trust the glowing reviews I have read on these boards from demonstrably intelligent gamers that the ToB classes are indeed better than the fighter. That is a near-universal opinion, and I'm willing to accept it on the word of people who otherwise appear to know what they're talking about. Not being in a campaign right now, I have no way of testing the effectiveness of those classes.


Producing errata costs money. If you want something for free, do it yourself or ask the internet. Or start shoplifting, I guess.
Well, I assume that the cost of producing errata is included in the original cost of the product. When they print and price the PHB, some amount of that cost is budgeted for "ongoing product support." If I find that your products do NOT contain any ongoing product support, I'm going to stop buying your products... as I did with WotC.

[Tavar]

Hasn't been the case in the 3 campaigns of 3.5 I've been in. Barbarians generally end up being pincushions compared to fighters, and fights often outlast the rage (especially those with enemies arriving in waves, a favorite of many DMs).
Various ways to extend rage, plus ways to reduce fatuige. Plus your Con should be huge, so you shouldn't really have a problem except in endurance runs, where almost everyone has a problem. And Barbarians regularly outperform fighter due to greater damage, skills, class feature, and ironically given what you've said, survivability.



No, my issue is more the way in which the product was integrated into 3.5, rather than its inherent quality. I trust the glowing reviews I have read on these boards from demonstrably intelligent gamers that the ToB classes are indeed better than the fighter. That is a near-universal opinion, and I'm willing to accept it on the word of people who otherwise appear to know what they're talking about. Not being in a campaign right now, I have no way of testing the effectiveness of those classes.

So, ignoring problems is better than fixing them? What other options were there?


Well, I assume that the cost of producing errata is included in the original cost of the product. When they print and price the PHB, some amount of that cost is budgeted for "ongoing product support." If I find that your products do NOT contain any ongoing product support, I'm going to stop buying your products... as I did with WotC.
But eventually, the money you put into ongoning support will dry up, unless you have a subscription service, like WoW. What happens then?

[Dienekes]

Step 1
Buy or somehow get your hands on ToB

Step 2
Read ToB

Step 3a
If you like it rename the classes, Warblade becomes Fighter, Crusader becomes Paladin, Swordsage becomes Rogue

Step 3a
If you like it take the martial maneuvers and rework them into feats that can be used multiple times per encounter. This is harder to balance, but seems to be more what you want to do.

[Tavar]

I'd say swordsage is more like monk, especially the unarmed swordsage, but to each his own.

[Dienekes]

Unarmed variant becomes monk of course. It may just be because the only Swordsage I've ever seen played was played by our former Rogue, who played him near exactly like a rogue.

[crazedloon]

What it sounds like is you have not done enough research into your fighter class before you jumped on the ToB hating band wagon...

Now it is true ToB is better than a fighter (and most of its alternate class features) but that is not ToB's fault (and really as others have said you should just replace the fighter types in the PHB with their equivalent in ToB)

But Fighter alternate class features (the errata you seem to want) are littered throughout WotC material. To name a few locations
PHBII
Champion of Valor
A bunch of web supplements
dungeonscape
dragon magic

[Fishy]

Step 1: Read Tome of Battle preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a) for free, online at the Wizards website.

Step 2: Download the Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a), for free, and read them.

Step 3: Build a Warblade.

I'm pretty sure Wizards did this on purpose so no one would ever have to play as a Fighter again.

[Aldizog]

But Fighter alternate class features (the errata you seem to want) are littered throughout WotC material. To name a few locations
PHBII
Champion of Valor
A bunch of web supplements
dungeonscape
dragon magic
I'm familiar with PHBII, and I think I did acknowledge that it did something for the high-level fighter (giving a reason to stay in the class).
The other 3.5 material I'm familiar with is the Complete series, the Races series, LoM, LM, HoH, FCI, FCII, SC, MIC, BoED, ToM, and Draconomicon. Though not campaign-specific material, Dungeonscape, or Dragon Magic. I did see the web supplement on so-called "dead levels".

Some ACFs are good, but in general they are asking you to give up something. If the fighter is actually underpowered, errata should add to it. The PHB errata should say "Add this text: a fighter may treat any ability score as equal to his fighter level +5 for the purpose of qualifying for feats," or something like that. An addition, not a replacement.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Some ACFs are good, but in general they are asking you to give up something.
You mean, like a bonus feat?

Doesn't that mean they are, in effect providing fighter only feats that allow new abilities, which is what you were asking for a few posts up?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Some ACFs are good, but in general they are asking you to give up something. If the fighter is actually underpowered, errata should add to it. The PHB errata should say "Add this text: a fighter may treat any ability score as equal to his fighter level +5 for the purpose of qualifying for feats," or something like that. An addition, not a replacement.Errata should not be used to stealth-balance.

[Belobog]

I'm familiar with PHBII, and I think I did acknowledge that it did something for the high-level fighter (giving a reason to stay in the class).
The other 3.5 material I'm familiar with is the Complete series, the Races series, LoM, LM, HoH, FCI, FCII, SC, MIC, BoED, ToM, and Draconomicon. Though not campaign-specific material, Dungeonscape, or Dragon Magic. I did see the web supplement on so-called "dead levels".

Some ACFs are good, but in general they are asking you to give up something. If the fighter is actually underpowered, errata should add to it. The PHB errata should say "Add this text: a fighter may treat any ability score as equal to his fighter level +5 for the purpose of qualifying for feats," or something like that. An addition, not a replacement.

Except that all that can be taken away from the Fighter are Fighter Bonus Feats, which are very weak compared to what they're being replaced with. Even if the bonus feat progression were kept in their entirety, it probably wouldn't add much in light of the new options that replace them. If losing bonus feats means I would be able to have more unique, powerful, and useful abilities, then I would take all I could get.

And ninja'd.

[crazedloon]

also to add class features is the same as a new class think of a warblade as a fighter who gives up certain levels of bonus feats and gets some much needed "errata" with added abilities like maneuver progression....

[Aldizog]

You mean, like a bonus feat?

Doesn't that mean they are, in effect providing fighter only feats that allow new abilities, which is what you were asking for a few posts up?
Without ToB, people take fighter for a few levels and PrC out. This is alleviated by things like Weapon Supremacy (high-level fighter-only feats).

With ToB, people ignore fighter entirely in favor of other classes. This is alleviated by either increasing the number of feats or adding "class features."

[SurlySeraph]

Not quite. It's often easier to make an effective Ubercharger (build focused on doing ludicrous amounts of damage by charging) or lockdown character (build focused on preventing enemies from moving) using a fighter, due to the quick availability and large number of feats. Lockdown builds in particular often benefit more from feats than maneuvers, as with the right feats they can make it so that anything their opponents do provokes an attack of opportunity and lets them knock them down.

But what exactly is wrong with ignoring Fighter? Very few people use potions in 3E, since wands are way more cost-effective. People don't choose inferior options as often. Why is this a problem for you?

[Indon]

I prefer more classes than less. Just pick and choose what's good for your game. If you want powerful classes, run a game with powerful classes. If you don't just want powerful classes, don't just have powerful classes. If you don't want powerful classes stealing the spotlight in games with multiple tiered classes, take steps to prevent it. If you want to play with all T1 classes in Tippyverse, you can do that too.

That's what's awesome about 3rd edition. The toolbox is so vast that everyone can both have, and eat, all the cake they want.

Also, seriously, the Fighter-Warblade thing applies to 90% of all the base classes, and at least half the prestige classes, in D&D, both in and out of core. Do you hate Wizards for releasing the Healer (overshadowed by the Cleric, an existing class) or the Warmage (overshadowed by various casters, and kinda psionics too)?

The only difference, of course, being that this forum really hates on the Fighter and Monk specifically, because people like them and they aren't staggeringly powerful.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I see a lot of love for ToB. And that is a book which I will never forgive for introducing a fighter that fights better than the fighter. As soon as I heard fans raving about how much better warblades were than fighters, I refused to even consider using it. It just struck me as bad design. As good as ToB may have been in and of itself, I don't agree with its integration into the existing system.

You must really hate core, what with the cleric and all.


This seems to have been a pattern with 3.5. Why did they not errata the classes they thought were too weak, instead of introducing superior replacements for the fighter and monk? Why did they not errata Toughness to be Improved Toughness? Why did they not errata the Eldritch Knight instead of adding a half-dozen more-powerful gish PrCs? Why leave the game cluttered with the corpses of these now-obselete options?

Well, to be honest, the designers weren't the best at understanding this whole "balance" thing. Then there's the fact that a few designers actually went out and thought. "We should introduce new options that are weaker so people will take them for the flavor!"

Minor nitpick on Eldritch Knight: whereas it isn't the best in the barnyard, it still ends up seeing use. Admittedly as filler, but, hey, it's getting something close to love. That and the only two gish PrCs that are anywhere near better are Abjurant Champion and Knight Phantom. Both of these require a wasted feat slot and lack anything resembling early entry.



If the creators really wanted to experiment with new mechanics with ToB as part of their 4E research, couldn't they have boosted the fighter so it wasn't left in the dust? The fighter could have used a few more high-level-fighter-only feats. We got a few in PHBII (Weapon Supremacy and the ACFs), but from what I hear, still not enough to compete with the warblade.

So, just for note, the one and only time they created errata you pay for was Complete Psionics, aka, "The Book that Never Was."

As for actually decent fighter ACFs, look in Dungeonscape for Dungeoncrasher. It's another alternative for moar damage, but it also takes into account actual combat strategy. Complete Champion also had an option to temporarily increase Will saves as an immediate action at the cost of a feat slot and your BAB to use.


Fixable in house rules by having the fighter mug the other martial classes for things like Mettle and Thicket of Blades as high-level fighter feats, I suppose. To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?

As has already been mentioned, maneuvers and stances can be acquired via a [Fighter] feat.

As far as power boosts, it's less damage and more options. Hitting things with a pointy stick? Even the Str 8 wizard can do. Moving around the battlefield and actually having options? That requires class abilities, not feats.

[Indon]

You must really hate core, what with the cleric and all.

Clericzilla doesn't function well in Core. No Divine Metamagic.

[Aldizog]

But what exactly is wrong with ignoring Fighter? Very few people use potions in 3E, since wands are way more cost-effective. People don't choose inferior options as often. Why is this a problem for you?
Well... basically, in earlier editions, there would be guidelines on creating new classes. And they would advise you not to introduce a new class that is a better thief than the thief. That just stuck with me as a principle of good game design. You want your existing material to remain relevant. Particularly the core stuff. I don't mind if they introduce newer and lower-powered options like the Healer and the Warmage, since they don't render existing material obselete.

The power creep is most prominently an issue when you have a new player looking to join an existing group. Let's say he wants to use Complete Warrior and everybody else just has the PHB. Well, if you let him do that, he can outshine everybody else. So they want to rebuild their PCs using Complete Warrior. That can be somewhat jarring to story continuity, but you deal. Then another splatbook shows up. Then another.


You must really hate core, what with the cleric and all.
In core, and in actual games, not so much. First, the buffing takes time (and Rods of Quicken Spell are a) expensive and b) only for sale in a metropolis by RAW, assuming one even exists in the world). Second, at the levels the game is actually played, you have a lot of competition for those level-4 and level-5 slots. Third, your most important resource is not HP or spells, or even actions. It is table time. Most players do not go crazy with the uber-buffed cleric after the first time the DM hits them with a Dispel Magic.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Clericzilla doesn't function well in Core. No Divine Metamagic.

Cool, so instead of blowing three feats. I grab myself a rod of quicken and call it a day. Sure, I'm blowing more spells/day on this, but I have the important one at the start of combat. Use your first turn to Divine Power and charge or double buff. Also, I still have spells, so if it looks like fightan ain't going to work, those come into play.

[Thurbane]

Okay, I didn't want to derail the "favorite 3.5 book" thread with this, so I'm posting it separately.

I see a lot of love for ToB. And that is a book which I will never forgive for introducing a fighter that fights better than the fighter. As soon as I heard fans raving about how much better warblades were than fighters, I refused to even consider using it. It just struck me as bad design. As good as ToB may have been in and of itself, I don't agree with its integration into the existing system.

This seems to have been a pattern with 3.5. Why did they not errata the classes they thought were too weak, instead of introducing superior replacements for the fighter and monk? Why did they not errata Toughness to be Improved Toughness? Why did they not errata the Eldritch Knight instead of adding a half-dozen more-powerful gish PrCs? Why leave the game cluttered with the corpses of these now-obselete options?

If the creators really wanted to experiment with new mechanics with ToB as part of their 4E research, couldn't they have boosted the fighter so it wasn't left in the dust? The fighter could have used a few more high-level-fighter-only feats. We got a few in PHBII (Weapon Supremacy and the ACFs), but from what I hear, still not enough to compete with the warblade.

Fixable in house rules by having the fighter mug the other martial classes for things like Mettle and Thicket of Blades as high-level fighter feats, I suppose. To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?
Agree with most of this 100%. I really don't like trying to fix the game by introducing non-core classes who "do it better" than the core classes. Not just ToB (although this is probably the worst offender), but also things like the Factotum, out-roguing the Rogue.

Of course, this all comes with the disclaimer that this is eniteirely a personal opinion. A lot of people find this method a perfectly acceptable way to improve the game. Not me though - I like the core classes, and don't like to see them hung out to dry by new whizzbang base classes. I'd rather see boosting of the weaker core classes with feats, prestige classes and alternate class features.

That's my 2 cents, anyhow. :smallwink:

[Indon]

Cool, so instead of blowing three feats. I grab myself a rod of quicken and call it a day. Sure, I'm blowing more spells/day on this, but I have the important one at the start of combat. Use your first turn to Divine Power and charge or double buff. Also, I still have spells, so if it looks like fightan ain't going to work, those come into play.

170,000 GP.

If you could spend 100% of your WBL on a single item, which you almost certainly will not be allowed to, that's about level 10ish.

And you still lack the metamagic feat which makes Clericzilla work best - Persist Spell.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Well... basically, in earlier editions, there would be guidelines on creating new classes. And they would advise you not to introduce a new class that is a better thief than the thief. That just stuck with me as a principle of good game design. You want your existing material to remain relevant. Particularly the core stuff. I don't mind if they introduce newer and lower-powered options like the Healer and the Warmage, since they don't render existing material obselete.

Oh, from 2E? I remember hearing how you could make something that got as many spells as a wizard, "skills" like a rogue, THAC0 like a fighter, and less xp to level than anyone else. All by said guidelines.


The power creep is most prominently an issue when you have a new player looking to join an existing group. Let's say he wants to use Complete Warrior and everybody else just has the PHB. Well, if you let him do that, he can outshine everybody else. So they want to rebuild their PCs using Complete Warrior. That can be somewhat jarring to story continuity, but you deal. Then another splatbook shows up. Then another.

Wait, so if someone is using a base class from Complete Warrior he's upstaging everyone else? I'd say at that point, everyone else is incompetent or the guy using CW is cheating.

Now, if he's using PrCs and feats from that book, it's more likely that he'll do better. However, most of the PrCs in CW usable by PCs (Hulking Hurler, just get out.) aren't OMGmazing. Ronin is nice for a dip, as is Knight of the Chalice for options. Bear Warrior and Frenzied Bezerker are also good for boosting the barbarian, but most people don't take kindly to someone using FB and NOT boosting his will save to prevent killing the party. The rest of them? Eh.

[Lycanthromancer]

Agree with most of this 100%. I really don't like trying to fix the game by introducing non-core classes who "do it better" than the core classes. Not just ToB (although this is probably the worst offender), but also things like the Factotum, out-roguing the Rogue.

Of course, this all comes with the disclaimer that this is eniteirely a personal opinion. A lot of people find this method a perfectly acceptable way to improve the game. Not me though - I like the core classes, and don't like to see them hung out to dry by new whizzbang base classes. I'd rather see boosting of the weaker core classes with feats, prestige classes and alternate class features.

That's my 2 cents, anyhow. :smallwink:

They've been doing that. And you know? It doesn't work. Core-only wizards are still far more powerful and far more useful. And they've gotten more (and more powerful) stuff than the fighter-types get.

Would you feel differently if they had made the ToB-three exactly the same as they are now, but as PrCs instead? Because they're really multiclass-friendly. Nobody says you can't take a few levels of fighter and then go into, say, warblade.

[Indon]

Oh, from 2E? I remember hearing how you could make something that got as many spells as a wizard, "skills" like a rogue, THAC0 like a fighter, and less xp to level than anyone else. All by said guidelines.

He's talking about responsible design, which he's accusing Wizards of not doing with ToB.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

75,000 GP.

If you could spend 100% of your WBL on a single item, which you almost certainly will not be allowed to, that's about level 10ish.

And you still lack the metamagic feat which makes Clericzilla work best - Persist Spell.

Fixed that for you. I'm only looking to quicken Divine Power. Hell, I could save even more money, buy a lesser rod to just quicken the 1st-3rd buffs and use my standard on round one to get divine power.

Yeah, it's weaker than using DMM: Persist, but this is core. I was showing that it is doable in core, not that it's better than core+.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

He's talking about responsible design, which he's accusing Wizards of not doing with ToB.

I think it's pretty responsible myself. Adding options to pre-existing melee classes? Check. Giving melee as a whole a much needed options boost? Check. Giving new toys to casters? Not so much. They get the same access to the feats and only two gishy PrCs, as well as general items, but no new spells.

I'd say ToB did wanders to give noncasters toys to play with outside of "pointy stick" and "hitting it REALLY hard."

[Tavar]

Clericzilla doesn't function well in Core. No Divine Metamagic.

The use Druid. Or Barbarian. Both are better, especially in Core play due to the lack of good feats.


Well... basically, in earlier editions, there would be guidelines on creating new classes. And they would advise you not to introduce a new class that is a better thief than the thief. That just stuck with me as a principle of good game design. You want your existing material to remain relevant. Particularly the core stuff. I don't mind if they introduce newer and lower-powered options like the Healer and the Warmage, since they don't render existing material obselete.
So, if you make Class A that's supposed to do B, but Class C that's supposed to do D does B better than class A, what are you supposed to do? The fighter fails in basic class design. There's no way to solve the problem without either increasing his power, or lowering the power of the game, and the latter would involve reworking the entire system. What are you supposed to do? Just call it a loss and stop releasing stuff?


The power creep is most prominently an issue when you have a new player looking to join an existing group. Let's say he wants to use Complete Warrior and everybody else just has the PHB. Well, if you let him do that, he can outshine everybody else. So they want to rebuild their PCs using Complete Warrior. That can be somewhat jarring to story continuity, but you deal. Then another splatbook shows up. Then another.
Actually, most splats don't add to much power. Sure, there's a couple exceptions, but by and large it's just Spells>Melee, and there's nothing you can do about it.


In core, and in actual games, not so much. First, the buffing takes time (and Rods of Quicken Spell are a) expensive and b) only for sale in a metropolis by RAW, assuming one even exists in the world). Second, at the levels the game is actually played, you have a lot of competition for those level-4 and level-5 slots. Third, your most important resource is not HP or spells, or even actions. It is table time. Most players do not go crazy with the uber-buffed cleric after the first time the DM hits them with a Dispel Magic.
The "uber-buffed" cleric is using only one spell that actually makes sense for any martial cleric to cast, and it's personally only. This is ignoring the many ways to increase caster level, or protect you buffs. Generally, I can find time to cast one spell. Hell, most of the time it's at least one round of movement to even get to the enemy.

[Oslecamo]

They've been doing that. And you know? It doesn't work. Core-only wizards are still far more powerful and far more useful. And they've gotten more (and more powerful) stuff than the fighter-types get.


Artificer, planar sheperd and archivist would like to have a word with you. They want to know where they can dump the body of the mangled core-only batman wizard, wich could do nothing but die when faced with their celerity and other splatbook spell shenigans.

[Zaydos]

Oh, from 2E? I remember hearing how you could make something that got as many spells as a wizard, "skills" like a rogue, THAC0 like a fighter, and less xp to level than anyone else. All by said guidelines.

Not by the guidelines. One line is off "less xp to level than anyone else". If you went by the guidelines you ended up needing a lot more XP than anyone at every level. I tried it... more than once. The real problem with the guidelines was you could make someone worse than everyone else and still need more XP than anyone. If you made a wizard with those guidelines you needed 50-100% more XP than a wizard normally did.

[Indon]

Fixed that for you. I'm only looking to quicken Divine Power. Hell, I could save even more money, buy a lesser rod to just quicken the 1st-3rd buffs and use my standard on round one to get divine power.

That'd be level 8ish. The lesser might work, but if you spend any in-combat rounds buffing, a Charge-Fighter of remotely comparable optimization level is likely to contribute more in combat than you will.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd say ToB did wanders to give noncasters toys to play with outside of "pointy stick" and "hitting it REALLY hard."

Frankly, there is no way I can conceivably fathom (gathered from my multitude of homebrews towards repairing fighter-types and specifically the fighter class) that does not involve a new spell-like system (whether it be maneuvers or something else) that allows a fighter-type to keep up with caster-types and meaningfully contribute past level 5.

[Lycanthromancer]

Artificer, planar sheperd and archivist would like to have a word with you. They want to know where they can dump the body of the mangled core-only batman wizard, wich could do nothing but die when faced with their celerity and other splatbook spell shenigans.

I was referring to casters >>> martial classes. Core-only wizards can out-shazaam pretty much any mundane melee class out there at or about level 5. Level 3 if you know what you're doing. Level 1 if you're doing it right.

[Aldizog]

Oh, from 2E? I remember hearing how you could make something that got as many spells as a wizard, "skills" like a rogue, THAC0 like a fighter, and less xp to level than anyone else. All by said guidelines.
Really? Warrior THAC0: +2. Wizard spells: +16. Thief skills: +8. That's 26*200 = 5200 XP for 2nd level, just for 1d3 HD. DMG, p. 23. You can slap on restriction on weapons, armor, ethos, and alignment to reduce the cost to a point, but not that much.

There's the tables of the math, and then there's what the text told you as a design principle. It specifically acknowledges the system isn't foolproof and isn't recommended for novices. It specifically says that standard classes are designed to have an edge over custom-designed classes.



Now, if he's using PrCs and feats from that book, it's more likely that he'll do better. However, most of the PrCs in CW usable by PCs (Hulking Hurler, just get out.) aren't OMGmazing. Ronin is nice for a dip, as is Knight of the Chalice for options. Bear Warrior and Frenzied Bezerker are also good for boosting the barbarian, but most people don't take kindly to someone using FB and NOT boosting his will save to prevent killing the party. The rest of them? Eh.
Shock Trooper is quite good enough that a fighter with PHB+CW is noticeably better than one with just PHB. With the total of all feats and PRCs, the difference will be considerable.

[Akal Saris]

Aldizog: Just for the record, the fighter still does several things better than the warblade does.

-The fighter is a better archer than the warblade at all levels
-The fighter is a better tripper than the warblade at most, if not all, levels
-The fighter with dungeonscape is a better bull rusher than the warblade at all levels
-The fighter is better at any fighting style that requires a lot of feats, like AOO builds or any character that wants to be good at two things, like melee and ranged attacks (warblades don't even have ranged proficiencies!)
-The fighter is better as a 2-4 level dip than the warblade for a large number of builds and prestige classes.

Don't get me wrong - most of the time the warblade is more fun than the warblade, because you're playing Samurai Jack and have kickass flavor and new maneuvers every 2 levels, whereas the fighter is bland and generally does the same 1-2 things every round, but gets increasingly better at it over time. But it's not a better fighter for all cases.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Shock Trooper is quite good enough that a fighter with PHB+CW is noticeably better than one with just PHB. With the total of all feats and PRCs, the difference will be considerable.

Sure, so Mr. Fighter ubercharges. Unless he can fly, tough terrain kicks him in the pants. Without another feat, corners will stop him, too. A core barbarian, if played well, will most likely do about as well as a fighter using core+CW.


That'd be level 8ish. The lesser might work, but if you spend any in-combat rounds buffing, a Charge-Fighter of remotely comparable optimization level is likely to contribute more in combat than you will.

Well, if I'm using swifts and he isn't, I'd call that a plus for me. Especially if my swifts happen to prevent him from using actions. It's versatility there that is powerful. Quicken Divine Favor alone helps mitigate the hypothetical core fighter's and core cleric's to-hit bonuses.

[crazedloon]

you know I think we need a straight comparison between warblade and fighter...

Fighter - Warblade
full BaB - Full BaB
good fort - good fort
11 bonus feats - 4 bonus feats
-------------- - "battle" class feature (clarity, ardor, cunning, skill, mastery)
d10 hd - d12 hd
--------------- - uncanny dodge
---------------- 13 maneuvers
---------------- 4 stances
Fighter feats - weapon aptitude

Ok so with the list done lets look at the diffrences and see if the warblade could logicaly fall into the "errata" category you want (i.e. not to changed)

- "battle" class feature: These should be able to be emulated with feats (well at least most of them particularly if you have a low int stat) power critical = ardor
Lightning Reflexes = clarity
improved trip/bull rush/disarm/faint = skill
sneak attack variant UA = cunning
? = master

so in total you could spend 7 of your feats to emulate this class feature (and have the same number of bonus feats)

-uncanny dodge: No way to gain this without multi-classing to my knowledge

- maneuvers/Stances: well there are feats for this and you can gain as many stances as you want and 3 manuvers so lets say 3 and 4 to equal a warblade

This leaves you with 4 feats same as a warblade

- weapon aptitude: Well here is a tricky on it makes the warblade like a fighter (slightly worse in level) but better so no copying...

-D12 Hd: well imporved toughness will make you have a d11 so close (if you really are hurting for the hp toughness could catch you up :smallredface: )

So with that done the warblade give you an errata were he gets 7 extra feats and uncanny dodge tree and an ability he should have always had (the changing feats ability) in essence what this analysis shows me is that the Warblade is pretty much an errata rolled into a nice easy to follow class.

I will admit this does not take into account the fact that the fighter will never be able to take 9th level maneuvers and the fact that the feats are not always a straight equivalent but as far as looking at it as an errata (or just "good" feat choice) I hope it illustrates something

[Kylarra]

-D12 Hd: well imporved toughness will make you have a d11 so close (if you really are hurting for the hp toughness could catch you up :smallredface: )Nitpick, D10 HD + improved toughness is equivalent to D12 on average.
D10 averages to 5.5 per level +1 =6.5
D12 averages to 6.5 per level.

[Zaydos]

-D12 Hd: well imporved toughness will make you have a d11 so close (if you really are hurting for the hp toughness could catch you up :smallredface: )

Nitpick: Improved Toughness is +1 hp/level; average difference between d10 and d12 is 1 hp/level so it's the equivalent of d12 hp except for a -1 hp at 1st level.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Aldizog]

Sure, so Mr. Fighter ubercharges. Unless he can fly, tough terrain kicks him in the pants. Without another feat, corners will stop him, too. A core barbarian, if played well, will most likely do about as well as a fighter using core+CW.
Why are we comparing apples to oranges? A barbarian using core+CW is better than one with just core. A fighter using core+CW is better than one with just core. The feats and PRCs in that book add a lot; the boost was needed, but the fact remains that melee PCs with that book are just better than those that are core-only.


Aldizog: Just for the record, the fighter still does several things better than the warblade does.

-The fighter is a better archer than the warblade at all levels
-The fighter is a better tripper than the warblade at most, if not all, levels
-The fighter with dungeonscape is a better bull rusher than the warblade at all levels
-The fighter is better at any fighting style that requires a lot of feats, like AOO builds or any character that wants to be good at two things, like melee and ranged attacks (warblades don't even have ranged proficiencies!)
-The fighter is better as a 2-4 level dip than the warblade for a large number of builds and prestige classes.

Don't get me wrong - most of the time the warblade is more fun than the warblade, because you're playing Samurai Jack and have kickass flavor and new maneuvers every 2 levels, whereas the fighter is bland and generally does the same 1-2 things every round, but gets increasingly better at it over time. But it's not a better fighter for all cases.

Thanks for clearing that up (and to the others that have pointed out similar observations). It may be the case that, with the combination of fighter ACFs in various sources, the fighter-only bonus feats like Weapon Supremacy, and maybe a few upgrades (Mettle, some of the Knight's stuff, and maybe Fast Healing at high level), the Fighter can be solid enough that he is not totally overshadowed by the ToB. Less flashy, perhaps, and not as versatile, but still a powerhouse. I suppose encounter design is important, as certain kinds of fights are going to favor ToB classes, and others maybe the fighter.

[Tavar]

Note that Weapon Aptitute should really just be in the game mechanics themselves: none of the feats that require you to use a specific weapon would be even good if they applied to all weapons.

[Book Wyrm]

@Aldizog: I think your confusing one major aspect of the Warblade that makes it so much better than the fighter. Its not the special abilities that make the warbalde better, its the maneuvers. The maneuvers increase his damage output, let him attack multiple opponents, let him bypass DR, let him throw off harmful effects, let him help his allies, and a multitude of other interesting and useful things. The special abilities are just icing on top of the best cake you've ever eaten. Even giving the fighter a bonus feat at every level wouldn't allow him to compete with the warblade's versatility and fun mechanics.

@Akal Saris: 2 levels in Bloodstorm Blade makes the Warblade a competent ranged combatant and 10 levels and a couple feats make the Warblade a way better ranged combatant than the fighter. Not necessarily "archer" since he can't use bows, but who cares about bows when you can hit everything in your 30ft range with a 2d6 orc shot put that deals +1.5 str damage. (and thats not even optomized)

[Akal Saris]

Thanks for clearing that up (and to the others that have pointed out similar observations). It may be the case that, with the combination of fighter ACFs in various sources, the fighter-only bonus feats like Weapon Supremacy, and maybe a few upgrades (Mettle, some of the Knight's stuff, and maybe Fast Healing at high level), the Fighter can be solid enough that he is not totally overshadowed by the ToB. Less flashy, perhaps, and not as versatile, but still a powerhouse. I suppose encounter design is important, as certain kinds of fights are going to favor ToB classes, and others maybe the fighter.

That's about accurate. Giving the fighter a d12 HP, some of the knight's stuff, and the fighter-specific feats for free would probably result in a character that is less flashy but a better tank than the warblade, which seems to be what most people think about when they think of the fighter (whereas I think of a tripper or an archer or a fighter/XYZ multiclass).

[Draz74]

Can't believe no one yet has posted this answer to the OP:


To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?

Bears With Lasers' Fighter Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692)

[Aldizog]

Bears With Lasers' Fighter Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692)
That... is really good. Designed to keep up with ToB, and modular enough that it can be easily tweaked. Plus, it was designed by Bears with Lasers.

[SurlySeraph]

Note that Weapon Aptitute should really just be in the game mechanics themselves: none of the feats that require you to use a specific weapon would be even good if they applied to all weapons.

Except Lightning Maces with any high-crit weapon, but that's an exception.

[Draz74]

That... is really good. Designed to keep up with ToB, and modular enough that it can be easily tweaked. Plus, it was designed by Bears with Lasers.

Still needs 4 skill points/level instead of 2, IMHO. But yeah, it's pretty much what you're asking for.

Minor warning: it's intended for an environment in which unusually-powerful non-Core Fighter options, such as Shock Trooper or a one-level Lion Totem Barbarian dip, are banned (since they would make some of his Arts of War obsolete and pointless).

[Tavar]

Except Lightning Maces with any high-crit weapon, but that's an exception.

Yeah, that's just one of those things that's completely broken. I mean, didn't a character in the Test of Spite do a couple thousand damage to himself using that combo(I believe Death Urge was used...).

[Kylarra]

Everything in 3.X could use a hefty dose of skillpoints imo.

[Dr Bwaa]

Put simply (and I apologize if someone else has brought this up already, but I'm lazy), Wizards can get you to pay for new material, so they do. Secondarily, they don't honestly care much about some classes being better than others, not that I can find the article I read on wizards.com that stated that. It's the same deal that they have going with MtG: some options are strictly better than others, and that's okay. I don't see a problem with that philosophy. After all, if monks were obviously tier-one-or-two characters, how would Giacomo have gotten famous? How would Tippy, if wizards couldn't take over/rebuild the universe at lvl 21? That's what's really important. :smallsmile: :smalltongue:

[AstralFire]

Simple answer: Tome of Battle is in fact errata for the Monk and Fighter/Barbarian, with an interesting take on a variant Paladin. This was complicated with the issue that-

Simple fact: Most people don't take homebrew seriously and forget to look up errata. How often have even top-notch rules lawyers missed a piece of errata because it's simply not handy in the book? And it's not in a pleasant format; many find screens less convenient than text, and errata wouldn't come with pretty art.

Another simple fact: Some people require fluff in their rules, even if they are capable of imagining fluff themselves. For these folks, fluff is like wrapping paper, and I won't deny that particularly good fluff can help to sell even me (the self-imagined queen of refluff) on a mechanic.

A tired reiteration: Any fix to the fighter has to be drastic and wide-sweeping, and essentially none keep the basic format of the class from the PHB, though some adhere closer to the spirit than others. (The Warblade, for example, adheres well to a few of the most common concepts of Fighter but doesn't handle everything the Fighter class was meant to handle, even if the Fighter class often proved to be poor at them itself.)

Conclusion: Releasing Tome of Battle as a book and not labeling it as errata was:

The most financially successful solution for Wizards, especially as a dry run of some 4E design principles. Errata benefits them little except as minor PR.
Most likely the best practical option to lead to adoption of these rules beyond merely the mechanical aficianados.

[sonofzeal]

Simple answer: Tome of Battle is in fact errata for the Monk and Fighter/Barbarian, with an interesting take on a variant Paladin. This was complicated with the issue that-

Simple fact: Most people don't take homebrew seriously and forget to look up errata. How often have even top-notch rules lawyers missed a piece of errata because it's simply not handy in the book? And it's not in a pleasant format; many find screens less convenient than text, and errata wouldn't come with pretty art.

Another simple fact: Some people require fluff in their rules, even if they are capable of imagining fluff themselves. For these folks, fluff is like wrapping paper, and I won't deny that particularly good fluff can help to sell even me (the self-imagined queen of refluff) on a mechanic.

A tired reiteration: Any fix to the fighter has to be drastic and wide-sweeping, and essentially none keep the basic format of the class from the PHB, though some adhere closer to the spirit than others. (The Warblade, for example, adheres well to a few of the most common concepts of Fighter but doesn't handle everything the Fighter class was meant to handle, even if the Fighter class often proved to be poor at them itself.)

Conclusion: Releasing Tome of Battle as a book and labeling it as errata was:

The most financially successful solution for Wizards, especially as a dry run of some 4E design principles. Errata benefits them little except as minor PR.
Most likely the best practical option to lead to adoption of these rules beyond merely the mechanical aficianados.

Bravo! Bravissimo!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Lycanthromancer]

SQUEEEEEEE! IT'S ASTRALFIRE!!!

:smalltongue:

[streakster]

Wise things

We seriously need to get some sort of post ranking system around here, so I can vote for this one.

Very, very well said.

[Kylarra]

omg it's astralfire! :smalltongue:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

As several people have mentioned, the main reason for ToB was money--this is the company whose plan for Magic: The Gathering is "Put out cards to make people buy those, put out better cards to make people buy those while banning the old good cards, repeat" after all.

WotC could have done their 4e playtest some other way, but why pay people to playtest your stuff when you can have them pay you? WotC could have errata'd the core classes, but then either (A) you wouldn't have to pay for it or (B) fewer people would buy it because they'd see it as "only" errata. Pretty much all the imbalance in the rules, I think, can be attributed to WotC's desire to make money; they're a company, they want to make a profit, and what better way to do that than to turn 1 gish PrC into dozens and so forth?

[averagejoe]

Another simple fact: Some people require fluff in their rules, even if they are capable of imagining fluff themselves. For these folks, fluff is like wrapping paper, and I won't deny that particularly good fluff can help to sell even me (the self-imagined queen of refluff) on a mechanic.

+1

I can do whatever on my own as far as flavor goes; however, a good RPG/supplement will inspire as well as inform, leading me in new directions even if I don't use any elements of the written flavor. A book should make me want to use the material in it out of sheer inspiration. ToB was, at least for me, less successful in this than other books have been, but straight errata would have been boring.

[Aldizog]

Another simple fact: Some people require fluff in their rules, even if they are capable of imagining fluff themselves. For these folks, fluff is like wrapping paper, and I won't deny that particularly good fluff can help to sell even me (the self-imagined queen of refluff) on a mechanic.

D&D lost me on using fluff to justify new crunch back in 1E with Unearthed Arcana (or at least the version explained to me at the time).
"The cavalier can increase his ability scores because, um, he trains really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"Okay, my fighter wants to train really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"No, he can't do that."
"Well that's stupid."

Which... was, again, introducing a new fighter that fights better than the fighter. I think I see a pattern.

I do think you have a great explanation of what was going on with ToB.

[Kylarra]

D&D lost me on using fluff to justify new crunch back with Unearthed Arcana (or at least the version explained to me at the time).
"The cavalier can increase his ability scores because, um, he trains really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"Okay, my fighter wants to train really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"No, he can't do that."
"Well that's stupid."

Which... was, again, introducing a new fighter that fights better than the fighter. I think I see a pattern.

I do think you have a great explanation of what was going on with ToB.The only Cavalier I know of is a PrC and PrCs are generally supposed to be better than being in their base counterparts...

[Aldizog]

The only Cavalier I know of is a PrC and PrCs are generally supposed to be better than being in their base counterparts...
The 1E version, where, for most mere mortals, increasing ability scores was not possible.

[sonofzeal]

D&D lost me on using fluff to justify new crunch back in 1E with Unearthed Arcana (or at least the version explained to me at the time).
"The cavalier can increase his ability scores because, um, he trains really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"Okay, my fighter wants to train really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"No, he can't do that."
"Well that's stupid."
I think the answer to that is....

"Okay, my fighter wants to train really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"Sure! Just jump through hoops X, Y, and Z (coincidently basically turning you into a Cavalier) and you're good!"

[Tavar]

Didn't Cavalier require your stats to be really high? Yeah, that was a bad idea.....

[Kylarra]

The 1E version, where, for most mere mortals, increasing ability scores was not possible.My bad for missing the 1e honestly, but holding WotC culpable for TSR things is kind of uh... holding a pretty firm grudge. WotC has enough flaws of their own without taking on things based on other people's actions.

[Aldizog]

My bad for missing the 1e honestly, but holding WotC culpable for TSR things is kind of uh... holding a pretty firm grudge. WotC has enough flaws of their own without taking on things based on other people's actions.
I added the "1E" after you posted to clarify.

And, no I don't really blame WotC for TSR's flaws. I do think there are certain of TSR's mistakes that they should have learned from which they have, for one reason or another, chosen not to. (Not just this issue.) But that's another rant and I've ranted enough for the day.

[Thurbane]

They've been doing that. And you know? It doesn't work. Core-only wizards are still far more powerful and far more useful. And they've gotten more (and more powerful) stuff than the fighter-types get.
I agree that it doesn't make Fighters anywhere near the power level of Wizards, but that's not exactly my point. I don't think they have done a great job of this (with the feats, ACFs and PrCs), just saying that if it was to be done, I'd rather have it done by means that don't effectively replace core classes. I concur that short of a full re-write, nothing is going to put core non-casters on a par with full casters like the Cleric, Druid or Wizard.

Would you feel differently if they had made the ToB-three exactly the same as they are now, but as PrCs instead? Because they're really multiclass-friendly. Nobody says you can't take a few levels of fighter and then go into, say, warblade.
Hmm, interesting thought. I'm pretty sure I would have enjoyed the ToB a lot more if the 3 base classes were instead presented as PrCs that core melee characters could slip into. I realise it is easy to multiclass core melee types with the base classes in ToB, but when that mutliclassing consists of using Fighter for a 2 level dip, it is little different (IMHO) than replacing the Fighter outright.

Like I said, I get why people like the ToB, I really do. It's just that the way it's presented doesn't mesh with what I look for from a splatbook.

[Lycanthromancer]

I agree that it doesn't make Fighters anywhere near the power level of Wizards, but that's not exactly my point. I don't think they have done a great job of this (with the feats, ACFs and PrCs), just saying that if it was to be done, I'd rather have it done by means that don't effectively replace core classes. I concur that short of a full re-write, nothing is going to put core non-casters on a par with full casters like the Cleric, Druid or Wizard.

Hmm, interesting thought. I'm pretty sure I would have enjoyed the ToB a lot more if the 3 base classes were instead presented as PrCs that core melee characters could slip into. I realise it is easy to multiclass core melee types with the base classes in ToB, but when that mutliclassing consists of using Fighter for a 2 level dip, it is little different (IMHO) than replacing the Fighter outright.

Like I said, I get why people like the ToB, I really do. It's just that the way it's presented doesn't mesh with what I look for from a splatbook.

Most people dip into fighter for 4 or fewer levels anyway (because anything more -without massive ACFing- is a total waste), so it's not like it doesn't already happen. Way too many dead-levels and not enough OMGAWESOME feats to justify them. Just consider ToB classes as PrCs without prereqs, and you should be okay.

[Yukitsu]

I go the opposite route. I think of them as wussy casters that punch people.

[oxinabox]

I don't know if you read the prerelease/dev infor for 4e, ( or if someone has already pointed this out)

ToB was not a prototype for 4e.
when they went to design 4e they thought "what were the most popular parts of 3.5?"
and they decided upon the Bo9S, and then used that as somethign to build up from

[Andras]

I don't know if you read the prerelease/dev infor for 4e, ( or if someone has already pointed this out)

ToB was not a prototype for 4e.
when they went to design 4e they thought "what were the most popular parts of 3.5?"
and they decided upon the Bo9S, and then used that as somethign to build up from

Well, according to them, anyway. I don't really trust that worth anything, though, given the circumstances surrounding the announcement of 4E.

[RichardRaccoon]

Allow me if I may, the typical D&D fighter can be BROKEN with many many things..especially if you are a human. the fighter to me is still quite powerful.

Im not sure if this has been touched on this thread yet as far as the fighter is concerned, but all of these new books such as ToB, and the like, also help the fighter too. The fighter's key strength lies in feats, ToB, and many other new books with much more "powerful" classes also include various new feats.

a Human level 1 fighter? if you use the flaws from Unearthed Arcana...
1 flaw, human fighter, level 1.
4 feats at level one. FOUR FEATS.
Coupled with the various rule books, so long as you aren't using PHB only...your fighter is now the essence of pwn the peoples.
There are feats for combat maneuvers, feats for more damage, more AC, spell touched feats...I think I saw somewhere a feat for if you have weapon focus with a weapon, you can use it to deflect ranged attacks like Aragorn in the fellowship when the Uraki tossed the elven dagger back at him, pa-TAYAOING, it also opened up ALL of the various deflection feats, so long as it was with the weapon you had the first feat for.
Feat slots only a Fighter's class could supply.

and lets not toss out equipment, a fighter with the right equipment is a match for even the mightiest wizard. Mantle of spell Resistance my friends, Mantle...of Spell Resistance.

In short, my personal opinion is the fighter in of itself, is a sturdy class, it might not come with all the bells and whistles most other classes do, to be sure, but what it lacks in flare, it more than makes up with for customization.

[Kaiyanwang]

OP, give a chance to ToB. Let me explain.

I want to say that, differently maybe from a lot of the above posters, my gaming group is perfectly fine with the system. We played it a lot, have a lot of material, and use it as, IMHO, should be intended, as a huge toolbox.

I've to say that I love how the fighter class is conceived: and I really love to built several kind of fighters using weapon styles and feat chains. In my opinion, it makes them even better in the mere roleplay, exspecially when meeting other combatants.

Nevertheless, I would be blind to not see the flaws of the class (silly example, the dead levels). In my opinion, those who say that the fighter is useless or weak are simply unable to combine feat chains, but maybe it's me.

ToB, first and foremost, add one of the most lovely things of 3.x: a new sub-system. New, fresh and well made. There are things that I love, and others I don't (examples are, in order, Tiger Claw as a whole and "4th-editionisms" like the (Ex) healing of Devoted Spirit), but the book overall is good.

Yes, there are things that, in several games (like mine) could be consideret slightly overpowered compared to similar powers. Example:

-Tiger Claw power "Girallion Wildmill Yadda Yadda" compared to the feat "Two-weapon-rend"). Yes, maybe "GWYY" could seem overkill compared to TWR, but at least is worthy to be taken. Should I spend a feat on something that is only a little edge?

ToB can help when things are hard to accomplish. Is just another tool of an huge, wonderful toolbox. I absolutely don't see it as mandatory. Thanks to Pelor, in my games drop a sword to use a bow is an option, and even if magic is powerful, rogues and fighter will have the same dignity of full casters. But discard it as a whole is a waste.

I repeat, I don't see ToB like a substitution. I see it like an expansion. Yes, the style of a lot of things, I don't like it. But I can refluff. Yes, I think something does not fit my campaign. Fine, I will not take it.

a further thing: Warblade and Fighter don't exclude each other. Few examples:

- some times ago, a guy asked for a Warblade build. He wanted to improve White Raven (the "commander school of ToB") to interact better with the fighter and the barbarian of his party. Teamwork.

-Multiclass and gestalt can allow a crapload of option. you could play, if the powerlevel of the campaign allows it, a Fighter/Warblade or a Fighter//Warblade to represent the ultimate Swordmaster (Spiked Chain master? Glaivemsater? Hammermaster?...)

-the classes can simply dip each other with great benefits.

[Chrono22]

Allow me if I may, the typical D&D fighter can be BROKEN with many many things..especially if you are a human. the fighter to me is still quite powerful.

Im not sure if this has been touched on this thread yet as far as the fighter is concerned, but all of these new books such as ToB, and the like, also help the fighter too. The fighter's key strength lies in feats, ToB, and many other new books with much more "powerful" classes also include various new feats.

a Human level 1 fighter? if you use the flaws from Unearthed Arcana...
1 flaw, human fighter, level 1.
4 feats at level one. FOUR FEATS.
Coupled with the various rule books, so long as you aren't using PHB only...your fighter is now the essence of pwn the peoples.
There are feats for combat maneuvers, feats for more damage, more AC, spell touched feats...I think I saw somewhere a feat for if you have weapon focus with a weapon, you can use it to deflect ranged attacks like Aragorn in the fellowship when the Uraki tossed the elven dagger back at him, pa-TAYAOING, it also opened up ALL of the various deflection feats, so long as it was with the weapon you had the first feat for.
Feat slots only a Fighter's class could supply.

and lets not toss out equipment, a fighter with the right equipment is a match for even the mightiest wizard. Mantle of spell Resistance my friends, Mantle...of Spell Resistance.

In short, my personal opinion is the fighter in of itself, is a sturdy class, it might not come with all the bells and whistles most other classes do, to be sure, but what it lacks in flare, it more than makes up with for customization.
I'm inclined to agree that a well built warrior (one with the right equipment, plenty of versatility, staying power, etc) can stand up to a typical wizard. But if the player that built that uber-fighter focused on building a wizard, the resultant character would eeeeaaaasssiiiillllyyy exceed whatever the warrior-build could accomplish.
That you can use your personal ability to bypass or overcome some of the fighter's limitations doesn't mean they don't exist.
A mantle of spell resistance is such a pathetic defense against even lower level mages... I find the idea that it would even be an obstacle to a higher level wizard laughable.

I think ToB went a long way to fixing the fighter in respect to the casting classes- but whatever gains it made were already overshadowed by the dozens of spell-filled splat books that preceded it.

[Riffington]

The only Cavalier I know of is a PrC and PrCs are generally supposed to be better than being in their base counterparts...

I'm glad you crossed this out, because I totally disagree with it. PrCs are supposed to be more focused than their base counterparts but equal or less powerful overall. Unfortunately, it's tough to perfectly balance this (and some designers disagree), so there's a bunch of PrCs out there that are indeed more powerful. Obviously, people are more likely to take those, but it's a design flaw rather than a feature.

[SparkMandriller]

Mantle of spell Resistance my friends, Mantle...of Spell Resistance.

Credibility destroyed.

[Anyr]

and lets not toss out equipment, a fighter with the right equipment is a match for even the mightiest wizard. Mantle of spell Resistance my friends, Mantle...of Spell Resistance.

Items which grant fixed Spell Resistance are almost useless by the time a person can comfortably afford them. A Mantle of Spell Resistance costs 90,000 gp, which means that you'd have to wait until 15th level for it not to take more than half of your total wealth to buy. By that point, the 21 points of Spell Resistance that it gives are pathetic against a caster of the same level. Even a normal 15th level Wizard with no caster level buffs will beat it on a roll of 6 or more.

Even if you seriously stretch your resources, the earliest you'd be able to buy a Mantle would be 13th level, where it would take up almost all of your available wealth. Even then, the Wizard can still get through unbuffed by rolling 8 or more. That's assuming that he doesn't have access to Assay Spell Resistance or anything that let him take 10 on the check, any of which would stop him from needing to roll at all. Basically, the Mantle and its ilk are traps that lure people into spending their hard-earned cash; They scale too badly to do what they're supposed to do.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

and lets not toss out equipment, a fighter with the right equipment is a match for even the mightiest wizard. Mantle of spell Resistance my friends, Mantle...of Spell Resistance.
If only there were spells that did not allow for spell resistance.

[Tavar]

Also, it ignores the large number of SR:No spells.

[Starbuck_II]

I go the opposite route. I think of them as wussy casters that punch people.

I don't think wussy describes a caster who is comfortable with punching people. And yes stays alive while doing so.
That might be suicidal. That be foolish. But that definately isn't wussy. :smallsigh:

[AslanCross]

Without ToB, people take fighter for a few levels and PrC out. This is alleviated by things like Weapon Supremacy (high-level fighter-only feats).

With ToB, people ignore fighter entirely in favor of other classes. This is alleviated by either increasing the number of feats or adding "class features."

I beg to differ. If anything, Fighter has great synergy with Warblade. In my experience, Warblade gives the Fighter new life. Many of my warblade builds have some levels of fighter for the bonus feats or for Dungeoncrasher. I never let Warblade overwrite Fighter completely.

[PurinaDragonCho]

Not too long ago, I joined a high level game in progress. I heard what some of the other builds were, and I was really worried that my character was going to be OP. Another guy joined around the same time I did, and he made a wizard/incantatrix/archmage.

Thanks to the spell resistance and high saves that critters have at that level, the guy with 10 fighter levels and the rest in cleric (for self-buffs) is not just tagging along. He's EXTREMELY effective in actual game situations.

I've read tons of "fighters suck" threads, but I don't believe it anymore.

I personally think To9S is kind of cheesy, but I've never played any of those classes. I'm going to withhold judgment until I actually do.

End of rant.

[Kaiyanwang]

Not too long ago, I joined a high level game in progress. I heard what some of the other builds were, and I was really worried that my character was going to be OP. Another guy joined around the same time I did, and he made a wizard/incantatrix/archmage.

Thanks to the spell resistance and high saves that critters have at that level, the guy with 10 fighter levels and the rest in cleric (for self-buffs) is not just tagging along. He's EXTREMELY effective in actual game situations.

I've read tons of "fighters suck" threads, but I don't believe it anymore.

I personally think To9S is kind of cheesy, but I've never played any of those classes. I'm going to withhold judgment until I actually do.

End of rant.

I'm a great fighter fan (see above) but I don't think that a fighter 10 / cleric can be an argument, because clerical buffs are powerful.

Of course, if you assume that the cleric can buf the fighter (not with divine power) and that there are people that don't want to take more than 2 levels of fighter, you make a point. (I mean, about the "fighter suxx" thing).

[PurinaDragonCho]

Just to be clear, the guy almost never casts a spell. He does very little self-buffing. But he tears through critters, doing massive damage, and he's nearly unhittable. We've been fighting stuff at or higher than the appropriate CR for our party. He's extremely effective. He's the member of the party that everybody else wants to keep in the fight. He can easily do 150 points of damage in a single round.

[Tavar]

SR is a problem? Then just use the plethora of spells that don't allow SR. Or take the feat that allows you to take 10 on caster level checks. Or take Spell penetration/greater spell penetration. Or even better, Assay Resistance. Seriously, un-optimal play does not mean that one style is weaker than the other. Plus, what level are you playing at? I'm not sure that a couple 1st through 3rd cleric spells really will help matters.

Edit: What are your feats? Yes, a highly optimized fighter>a poorly played wizard. But assuming near equivalent optimization, Wizard<fighter.

[Blackfang108]

D&D lost me on using fluff to justify new crunch back in 1E with Unearthed Arcana (or at least the version explained to me at the time).
"The cavalier can increase his ability scores because, um, he trains really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"Okay, my fighter wants to train really hard whenever he's not adventuring."
"No, he can't do that."
"Well that's stupid."

Which... was, again, introducing a new fighter that fights better than the fighter. I think I see a pattern.

I do think you have a great explanation of what was going on with ToB.

Wait, so WotC doing the same thing as TSR is WotC's fault?

...

I'm lost.

[AslanCross]

Just to be clear, the guy almost never casts a spell. He does very little self-buffing. But he tears through critters, doing massive damage, and he's nearly unhittable. We've been fighting stuff at or higher than the appropriate CR for our party. He's extremely effective. He's the member of the party that everybody else wants to keep in the fight. He can easily do 150 points of damage in a single round.

I think most "Fighter Sucks" threads concede that it is indeed possible to make a very powerful Fighter build, and adding cleric levels will only make it better. However, I think it's no longer debatable that a core-only fighter is going to be quite lame.

[Kaiyanwang]

I think most "Fighter Sucks" threads concede that it is indeed possible to make a very powerful Fighter build, and adding cleric levels will only make it better. However, I think it's no longer debatable that a core-only fighter is going to be quite lame.


More than so, could be even a simple matter of tastes. I prefer the scheme of fighter bonus feats (even if I hate dead levels and how some feat scale badly).

Nevertheless, I discovered that a player of mine appreciated ToB because... she likes use "cooldowns", use powers we can say (even if, in this case, they are a complement of a charge built - guess what school she took).

[Talya]

Yeah, TOB actually makes the fighter MORE viable, due to how well it multiclasses, and how feat-starved TOB classes can be.

Fighter in core was almost completely useless after level 5 or 6. Your problem isn't with TOB, but with the design of the original game.

[Sinfire Titan]

Okay, I didn't want to derail the "favorite 3.5 book" thread with this, so I'm posting it separately.

I see a lot of love for ToB. And that is a book which I will never forgive for introducing a fighter that fights better than the fighter. As soon as I heard fans raving about how much better warblades were than fighters, I refused to even consider using it. It just struck me as bad design. As good as ToB may have been in and of itself, I don't agree with its integration into the existing system.

You must really loathe the Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Artificer/Archivist/Erudite/Barbarian/Rogue/Ranger then. Its a double standard to say you hate the Warblade because it fights better than the Fighter when all of those classes do the exact same thing. Yes, even the Rogue is a better combatant than the Fighter.

And you must really hate the Totemist, who manages to outfight the Fighter starting at level 1. As in "the only class to get 16 attacks with a single class feature" kind of outclassing. And Incarnates...



This seems to have been a pattern with 3.5. Why did they not errata the classes they thought were too weak, instead of introducing superior replacements for the fighter and monk? Why did they not errata Toughness to be Improved Toughness? Why did they not errata the Eldritch Knight instead of adding a half-dozen more-powerful gish PrCs? Why leave the game cluttered with the corpses of these now-obselete options?

WotC has a policy about errata: Use it to nerf or clarify only. They have never errata'ed an ability to make it stronger.


If the creators really wanted to experiment with new mechanics with ToB as part of their 4E research, couldn't they have boosted the fighter so it wasn't left in the dust? The fighter could have used a few more high-level-fighter-only feats. We got a few in PHBII (Weapon Supremacy and the ACFs), but from what I hear, still not enough to compete with the warblade.


They tried something like that; printing a book that was 60% errata. It flopped miserably (Complete Psionics, the Rules Compendium).

It doesn't work in practice. It looks like a good theory, but people don't want to have to pay for something that should have been included in Core.


Fixable in house rules by having the fighter mug the other martial classes for things like Mettle and Thicket of Blades as high-level fighter feats, I suppose. To those who actually use ToB, how much of a power boost does the fighter need to keep up with ToB classes, without Martial Study? More damage? Better defenses against melee or magic? More tactical/trickery options? More non-combat abilities?

Damage-wise? none at all. The Fighter and Barbarian can out-damage a Warblade almost effortlessly. Options-wise? It isn't about the numbers, its about the ability to make a Move+Attack action worth while. Spring Attack sucks, and if a Fighter has to move even 10ft he gets crippled massively.



The fighter class is completely flexible and one of the easiest to modify. All you have to do is introduce new fighter-only feats.


NO! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

More feats is not the answer, and the Fighter's bonus feats are not equal to class features (Dungeoncrasher proved that even two feats wasn't equal to a single ACF).


Hasn't been the case in the 3 campaigns of 3.5 I've been in. Barbarians generally end up being pincushions compared to fighters, and fights often outlast the rage (especially those with enemies arriving in waves, a favorite of many DMs).

Then your players are not optimizing the Barbarian, or you yourself are not. Barbarians out-damage the Fighter hands down, even in Core. Rage is that much more powerful than Weapon Focus/Spec. An optimized Barbarian will outclass the Fighter every time.


Without ToB, people take fighter for a few levels and PrC out. This is alleviated by things like Weapon Supremacy (high-level fighter-only feats).

With ToB, people ignore fighter entirely in favor of other classes. This is alleviated by either increasing the number of feats or adding "class features."

Weapon Supremacy isn't worth the Fighter levels. Seriously, it was a 2-6 level class before Dungeonscape, which solidified it as a 6 level class. Another ACF made it playable to 10th, but that version is very limited. The Warblade made it so you can have class features and Fighter feats, and if you want WS on your Warblade you can go Warblade 18/Fighter 2 and take it without being screwed over completely when you lose your weapon mid-encounter (because Disarming is a pain).


But what exactly is wrong with ignoring Fighter? Very few people use potions in 3E, since wands are way more cost-effective. People don't choose inferior options as often. Why is this a problem for you?

I agree, but I need to correct you on something: informed people don't choose inferior options as often. Even then, we sometimes do (my preference towards the Totemist over the Druid, for example), but we make it worth the cost. Anyone who takes the time to do a little math will know that Potions are strictly inferior to Wands, and that scrolls and staves are situational.


Clericzilla doesn't function well in Core. No Divine Metamagic.

Doesn't need it. Clerics are Tier 1 even without DMM. Spells are really that powerful for them. Archer Clerics, for example, are very powerful.



And you still lack the metamagic feat which makes Clericzilla work best - Persist Spell.

Persist Spell sucks. DMM is what makes it good. Echo Spell>>>>>>Persist Spell. Easier to optimize when your Metamagic relies on CL instead of Turn Undead.


-The fighter is a better archer than the warblade at all levels

CO's made a Warblade who specializes in Crossbow combat, using maneuvers like Time Stands Still to boost attacks/round. The Fighter manages to come close to that, but only because the build requires a pair of Heavy +10 Crossbows, both of which need the Aptitude quality and a questionable interpretation of said enhancement. Take away that last part and the Fighter will win out.


Everything in 3.X could use a hefty dose of skillpoints imo.

Except the Full Casters. Druid needs a nerf too. Artificer is borderline.


He's the member of the party that everybody else wants to keep in the fight. He can easily do 150 points of damage in a single round.

...That's it? 150 damage/round? I can get 600/round off of a very optimized Warblade (and I do mean optimized), and I've been able to get 400/round out of a Wizard or Artificer. Barbarians still manage to take the cake though, topping out at 800/round. And the record for non-infinite damage? A Hulking Hurler (previously Chuck, HH dethroned him when CC got errata'ed).

[Kaiyanwang]

Fighter in core was almost completely useless after level 5 or 6. Your problem isn't with TOB, but with the design of the original game.

IMHO, this can depend from the player and gaming group. A friend of mine bringed his fighter to level 40. He tended to use equipment like a wizard uses his spells: Reach weapons, swords, bow, thown.. there were always the right tool for the job.

I've to admit that was buffed by something like 6 casters (!!!) and the wizzie crafted items and weapons for him.

We can say that if your gaming style is not suitable for the standard fighter, there is a pint (level 1, 6, 12, 47) where you "break the glass" and take ToB.

After all, you could use it for epic only: the spellcasters take Epic Spellcasting, the meleers go "beyond" their standard abilities with the sublime way...

[Kylarra]

I'm glad you crossed this out, because I totally disagree with it. PrCs are supposed to be more focused than their base counterparts but equal or less powerful overall. Unfortunately, it's tough to perfectly balance this (and some designers disagree), so there's a bunch of PrCs out there that are indeed more powerful. Obviously, people are more likely to take those, but it's a design flaw rather than a feature.
I find it amusing that I take the time to strikeout one statement and it still gets responded to, but I'll clarify my position. PrCs should be stronger at their schtick than your typical base class, else there's no point to PrCing. Base classes should have slightly more versatility or potentially anyway.



IMHO, this can depend from the player and gaming group. A friend of mine bringed his fighter to level 40. He tended to use equipment like a wizard uses his spells: Reach weapons, swords, bow, thown.. there were always the right tool for the job.

I've to admit that was buffed by something like 6 casters (!!!) and the wizzie crafted items and weapons for him.

We can say that if your gaming style is not suitable for the standard fighter, there is a pint (level 1, 6, 12, 47) where you "break the glass" and take ToB.

After all, you could use it for epic only: the spellcasters take Epic Spellcasting, the meleers go "beyond" their standard abilities with the sublime way...
With 6 casters worth of buffs, he could pretty much be a commoner for all the base source really matters.

[Kaiyanwang]

With 6 casters worth of buffs, he could pretty much be a commoner for all the base source really matters.

You are right and wrong.

You are right because if 6 epic casters buff a toast, that toast will take down the tarrasque in 4-6 rounds (threadworthy :smallconfused:)

You are wrong because they weren't all the times buffed, unless for important fights, when not surprised. The fighter rocked even because the player was always able to do something useful and surprise the DM with a smart strategy and a proper use of charge, different weapons and full attack.

EDIT: for the "full attack", I mean that in his best days, in the important fights there weren't 2 similar full attacks actions

[Aldizog]

NO! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

More feats is not the answer, and the Fighter's bonus feats are not equal to class features (Dungeoncrasher proved that even two feats wasn't equal to a single ACF).
Every class feature can be turned into a feat or a feat chain. So, yes, more feats IS the answer if you read what I was talking about. Make Mettle a feat. Make Elaborate Parry a feat. Whatever you want.



Then your players are not optimizing the Barbarian, or you yourself are not. Barbarians out-damage the Fighter hands down, even in Core. Rage is that much more powerful than Weapon Focus/Spec. An optimized Barbarian will outclass the Fighter every time.
The core barbarian barely out-damages the fighter when in a rage. At level 4? +2/+3 and -2 AC vs. the fighter's +1/+2. Level 12, with Greater Rage? +3/+4.5 and -2 AC vs. +2/+4. Turning the extra to-hit bonus into PA damage, it's, in core, about an edge of 3 points per hit to the barbarian. Is that "much more powerful"? The fighter's array of feats makes up for this, as he'll be able to master two combat styles to the barbarian's one. I don't consider +3 damage per hit to be worth -2 AC. YMMV. Depends a lot on what you're actually fighting in the game. Charging (+2 to hit for -2 AC) is a better option that can be used as often as desired and doesn't leave you fatigued. With all its drawbacks and limitations, rage's +3 damage for -2 AC isn't as good.

Now, barbarian rage *is* powerful and the class makes a great 1- or 2-level dip; Brb2/Ftr4 is stronger than Brb6 or Ftr6.

[Sinfire Titan]

Every class feature can be turned into a feat or a feat chain. So, yes, more feats IS the answer if you read what I was talking about. Make Mettle a feat. Make Elaborate Parry a feat. Whatever you want.

No, it doesn't work like that. They tried this with UA, and it ended up more powerful than Core options.

Turning class features into feats means that classes are now effectively worthless. What is the difference between a Bard and a Rogue as a class if all of their class features are turned into feats? Next to nothing relevant.

This is, quite literally, the worst suggested fix I've heard. I've heard it several times, and there's a number of abilities that do not translate well into feats.

Seriously. It takes 6 feats for the Fighter to replicate Greater Rage (the Combat Focus feat that gives Fast Healing+the Weapon Focus/Spec line). It isn't practical and it goes against the design of 3.5 (a class-based, psuedo-Point Buy system).


The core barbarian barely out-damages the fighter when in a rage. At level 4? +2/+3 and -2 AC vs. the fighter's +1/+2. Level 12, with Greater Rage? +3/+4.5 and -2 AC vs. +2/+4. Turning the extra to-hit bonus into PA damage, it's, in core, about an edge of 3 points per hit to the barbarian. Is that "much more powerful"? The fighter's array of feats makes up for this, as he'll be able to master two combat styles to the barbarian's one. I don't consider +3 damage per hit to be worth -2 AC. YMMV. Depends a lot on what you're actually fighting in the game.

Now, barbarian rage *is* powerful and the class makes a great 1- or 2-level dip; Brb2/Ftr4 is stronger than Brb6 or Ftr6.

That +4.5 damage boost adds up fairly fast. Yo also leave out the HP, but included the AC penalty (which has nothing to do with it). And unlike you, I'd gladly trade 2 AC for +3/attack, especially when I can negate that same penalty with a miss chance. An optimized Barbarian is very powerful.

Chain Tripping is really the only thing you can do in Core, and even then both of them won't be doing it as effectively as hey could outside Core. The Barbarian excels at Tripping thanks to Rage, and the extra attacks from AoOs just make the total damage greater.

Outside Core it becomes more obvious. Frenzied Berserker, Bear Warrior, the Barbarian got a lot of love and the Fighter just got more feats.

[NoldorForce]

Every class feature can be turned into a feat or a feat chain. So, yes, more feats IS the answer if you read what I was talking about. Make Mettle a feat. Make Elaborate Parry a feat. Whatever you want.If every class ability can be converted to a feat, then we'd be working with generic classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm).

I don't think that's quite what you meant, however, which is something of a good thing. (Otherwise full casters would be able to do some silly things.) Still, turning even some class features into feats is not a good thing considering the wildly varying rates at which anybody can gain access to them. And the wildly varying power levels on some class features. (Elaborate Parry is actually kind of rubbish with 3E being principally about offense, while Mettle is much more useful.) You're trying just to allow the fighter to get this stuff, right? Then make them fighter class features that can be substituted for one (or more!) fighter bonus feats - that's the most appropriate way to go with this line of thinking.


~Barbarian stuff~ *snip*I'll let someone else speak to that, having never played a barbarian.

[Aldizog]

No, it doesn't work like that.
Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know how it works.

[Sinfire Titan]

Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know how it works.

I just told you that they all ready tried. It failed, ending up even more unbalanced than Core.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know how it works.

So, the thing is, even if these feats are to be fighter only, there are work arounds to having everyone take said feat either by dipping fighter or using something like heroics or another class that qualifies as a fighter to take said feat.

Now, making them alternate class features works a little differently. Dungeoncrasher is effectively 2 feats, but, you must take levels in fighter to gain access to it outside of TO works.

[Hyooz]

Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know how it works.

So your big balance fix to make fighter better is to effectively hand him whatever class features he wants on a platter?

That's not fixing the fighter, that's telling people who want to play a fighter that they can gestalt.

[Aldizog]

So your big balance fix to make fighter better is to effectively hand him whatever class features he wants on a platter?

"Whatever you want" should be read as "Whatever you, as DM, want to give the fighter so he's up to par." Not "Whatever you as player want." Earlier in the thread there was discussion of Mettle and Bulwark of Defense (the knight ability) as two examples.

I do think the Generic Classes approach looks pretty viable. You basically end up with a class-light system anyway in 3.5, at least when the optimizers get their hands on it. Dipping, PrCs, ACFs, and so on. You have the caster with the cherry-picked abilities, the melee combatant with the cherry-picked abilities... all going to Generic does is make this option available to all players, not just those with build mastery.

[Kaiyanwang]

all going to Generic does is make this option available to all players, not just those with build mastery.

No, can be dangerous. In .5 there are classes that you can play without so much effort. Removing this, you need ALWAYS system mastery.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I do think the Generic Classes approach looks pretty viable. You basically end up with a class-light system anyway in 3.5, at least when the optimizers get their hands on it. Dipping, PrCs, ACFs, and so on. You have the caster with the cherry-picked abilities, the melee combatant with the cherry-picked abilities... all going to Generic does is make this option available to all players, not just those with build mastery.

Wait, so, dipping and taking PrC makes it class-light now? If anything, that makes it class heavy, considering the work you have to go through to get just a few abilities.

Also, casters aren't the ones that go cherry picking. Know what one of the most powerful class combos is? Druid 20. There are about two prestige classes you could take as a druid that would increase your power: Shifter-only Moonspeaker and Planar "I have time stop but better" Shepherd.

Wizard, clerics, and sorcerers only benefit from prestige classing, but I can make an effective wizard with just one prestige class, from start to finish - or no prestige class at all.

The generics also do nothing to alleviate the disparity in build mastery among players. Those without it will probably still end up grabbing great cleave and maximize spell for fireball. Those with it won't.

[Hyooz]

"Whatever you want" should be read as "Whatever you, as DM, want to give the fighter so he's up to par." Not "Whatever you as player want." Earlier in the thread there was discussion of Mettle and Bulwark of Defense (the knight ability) as two examples.

I do think the Generic Classes approach looks pretty viable. You basically end up with a class-light system anyway in 3.5, at least when the optimizers get their hands on it. Dipping, PrCs, ACFs, and so on. You have the caster with the cherry-picked abilities, the melee combatant with the cherry-picked abilities... all going to Generic does is make this option available to all players, not just those with build mastery.

Oh, so your fix to the fighter is to give him equally poor class skills instead of feats which are useful? I don't know a single fighter who sighed mournfully that he couldn't have knight abilities instead of feats. Making mettle a fighter feat just opens it up for pretty much everyone to get Mettle. Might as well make Evasion a feat too, so your casters are even more invinsible.

And lol @ the idea of cherry-picking indicating a class-light system. If it was a class light system, you'd see lots more Wizard 20s than you do. Instead, classes are the focus of the system, so you have to tweak things to qualify for all these other classes, or multiclass effectively.

[Fax Celestis]

"Whatever you want" should be read as "Whatever you, as DM, want to give the fighter so he's up to par." Not "Whatever you as player want." Earlier in the thread there was discussion of Mettle and Bulwark of Defense (the knight ability) as two examples.

Alright, then I, as DM, arbitrarily decide that, hey, fighters are the worst example of class design ever and that anyone who wants to play one should just play a warblade instead. Done and done.

[Tavar]

Alright, then I, as DM, arbitrarily decide that, hey, fighters are the worst example of class design ever and that anyone who wants to play one should just play a warblade instead. Done and done.

I counter with the monk. At least the Fighter can sometimes preform his role, and has class abilities that can work together.

[SparkMandriller]

Alright, then I, as DM, arbitrarily decide that, hey, fighters are the worst example of class design ever and that anyone who wants to play one should just play a warblade instead. Done and done.

But what about the people who appear to have an emotional investment in the fighter class to the point that they can't throw it away even if it does suck?

You know, like the OP.

[Aldizog]

But what about the people who appear to have an emotional investment in the fighter class to the point that they can't throw it away even if it does suck?

You know, like the OP.

I was asking for an explanation of why WotC chose to replace a core class with expansion material that was flat-out better rather than attempting to improve the core class.

I received a number of satisfactory answers. I think I understand why WotC did it the way they did.

Redesigning the game so that the fighter remains a viable option compared to the warblade is an involved task. I've gotten some good tips up to this point but see no reason to continue to hash out the entire development process in a series of posts.

[lsfreak]

But what about the people who appear to have an emotional investment in the fighter class to the point that they can't throw it away even if it does suck?

You know, like the OP.
He left it up to the DM, so... sucks for him.

EDIT: And, as someone pointed out at gleemax, warblades effectively get what fighters should have had - they get their normal feats, a few bonus feats, and then they get these 13 really good feats that scale with level (by being able to trade them out for newer, better feats). These scaling feats just happen to be called maneuvers instead of feats. So not only do warblades get what fighters should have had (scaling feats), they also get more feats than the fighter gets in total.

[lesser_minion]

Thanks, I'll give it a try and let you know how it works.

The fighter is a bad class because it lacks meaning, not because it lacks power - half of the class grants nothing, and the other class might as well grant the same because it doesn't grant anything particularly special or interesting.

Making class features into feats doesn't actually make those feats special. At best, it makes the class features less special. You are still left with the fact that the fighter doesn't bring anything unique to the table. And you would hurt other classes by trying.

[Tehnar]

I think, to build a better fighter (and one that differs from a warblade) is to take the things that make fighter special and emphasize that.

In the fighters case its easy; the only thing special (or its major class feature) are his bonus fighter feats. So why not improve on those feats when a fighter takes them. Some ideas I had:

- if a character takes combat expertise, and is fighter level 5+, he can convert any amount of bab bonus into AC
- if a character takes deflect arrows, is a fighter level 7+ and using a shield, he can use a shield to deflect arrows (does not need a free hand)

or you could mix it up:
- if a character takes combat expertise, deflect arrows, improved shield bash, is a fighter level 13+ and is using a shield, he can use a shield to deflect ranged touch attacks

Or you can introduce new, fighter only feats, like they did in the PHB 2.

Obviously this needs a lot of work, and could end up quite complicated, but it could be done to make fighter a distinct class, with real class features. This is just a suggestion of what could be done on the basis of my homebrew. Scour the forums, and I'm sure you will many interesting and worthwhile fixes.

[Sinfire Titan]

He left it up to the DM, so... sucks for him.

EDIT: And, as someone pointed out at gleemax, warblades effectively get what fighters should have had - they get their normal feats, a few bonus feats, and then they get these 13 really good feats that scale with level (by being able to trade them out for newer, better feats). These scaling feats just happen to be called maneuvers instead of feats. So not only do warblades get what fighters should have had (scaling feats), they also get more feats than the fighter gets in total.

And it's actually kinda surprising that said thread was not linked to. Of all of the things Aelryinth every posted, that thread was the only one I would not argue about. He was legitimately correct on the matter.


Fighters effectively get a total of 7+Class bonus feats (around 20, counting armor and weapons and such). Warblades have upwards of 30. This is assuming maneuvers, stances, and class features are equal to feats (which, in the Warblade's specific case, they just about are).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

As far as fighter "fixes" go, I vaguely recall someone creating a "feats" known style table, in which you grab certain feats of X level and then switch them out on a day-to-day basis. Some of the "feats" were actual feats, like combat expertise, others were homebrewed, and, not being true feats, were available no where else.

It certainly was one of the more interesting fixes, but I'm lenient to say "better," due to both the tendency to just add more numbers to the so-called fix and my memory not being exact.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

And it's actually kinda surprising that said thread was not linked to. Of all of the things Aelryinth every posted, that thread was the only one I would not argue about. He was legitimately correct on the matter.

I was going to, but I'd thought that thread was archived, and thus gone until the WotC web team gets off their lazy backsides and fixes the archive problem--but apparently it wasnt, so here it is (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573526/Analyzing_the_Fighter_vs_The_Warblade).

[AstralFire]

If you're relying on... well... anything in the game to match up to epic spellcasting aside from maybe epic psionics, haha no.

[Akal Saris]

I was asking for an explanation of why WotC chose to replace a core class with expansion material that was flat-out better rather than attempting to improve the core class.

I received a number of satisfactory answers. I think I understand why WotC did it the way they did.

Redesigning the game so that the fighter remains a viable option compared to the warblade is an involved task. I've gotten some good tips up to this point but see no reason to continue to hash out the entire development process in a series of posts.

Actually, for a simple fighter fix that maintains its flavor, how about making the fighter gestalt with the knight (PHB II), replacing both classes with the gestalt of the pair?

So the base fighter would gain knight abilities such as the fighting challenge and tanking abilities, a d12 HD and a good will/fort save, etc. The class would also have no dead levels, which is something I personally appreciate.

Given that both classes are around tier 4-5, this would probably push the new class into upper T3, up there with the warblade and crusader.

[Tyndmyr]

Every class feature can be turned into a feat or a feat chain. So, yes, more feats IS the answer if you read what I was talking about. Make Mettle a feat. Make Elaborate Parry a feat. Whatever you want.


Making everything into feats is an abuse of the feat system. Ever read Weapons of Legacy and thought "why the hell did they mangle all this into a feat system, when there are simpler, perfectly usable existing options"? It's like that.

If you stuffed them into feats, they would be available to everyone, in different combos, and this would have the effect of making non-fighter meleers still better than the fighter.

If you start making feats that only a fighter can take, you're trying to stuff class features into the fighter by abusing the feat system. Don't do that.

[Thurbane]

Most people dip into fighter for 4 or fewer levels anyway (because anything more -without massive ACFing- is a total waste), so it's not like it doesn't already happen. Way too many dead-levels and not enough OMGAWESOME feats to justify them. Just consider ToB classes as PrCs without prereqs, and you should be okay.
Well, there's the problem - I'm one of those oddballs who like Fighters beyond a 4 level dip! :smalltongue: Heck, I even like Monks! :smallbiggrin:

[lord_khaine]

Also, casters aren't the ones that go cherry picking. Know what one of the most powerful class combos is? Druid 20. There are about two prestige classes you could take as a druid that would increase your power: Shifter-only Moonspeaker and Planar "I have time stop but better" Shepherd.


What book is Moonspeaker from?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fax Celestis
Alright, then I, as DM, arbitrarily decide that, hey, fighters are the worst example of class design ever and that anyone who wants to play one should just play a warblade instead. Done and done.

I counter with the monk. At least the Fighter can sometimes preform his role, and has class abilities that can work together.


And i interupt the counter with yet another monk, its my experience that the monk is more often usefull than the fighter.

[Oslecamo]

Fighters effectively get a total of 7+Class bonus feats (around 20, counting armor and weapons and such). Warblades have upwards of 30. This is assuming maneuvers, stances, and class features are equal to feats (which, in the Warblade's specific case, they just about are).

Ahem. FEATS DON'T WORK THAT WAY!

You say the warblade gets 30 fighter level feats. I say he gets 30 feats from a much more restricted list.

It's like comparing the ranger to the fighter and claiming the ranger rocks because he also gets a bazilion "feats" compared to the fighter, but when you look carefully, are those feats so usefull? Track? +1 against one kind of creature?

The warblade bonus feats draw from a much more restricted list, and his maneuvers and stances are also limited to just a few schools. The fighter isn't.

That's also why swordsage dip is so popular, since it can grant you an handfull of maneuvers from diferent schools in just one level, but if you really want to optimize, then you just take that 1 level, the multiclass to something else.

[Boci]

Ahem. FEATS DON'T WORK THAT WAY!

You say the warblade gets 30 fighter level feats. I say he gets 30 feats from a much more restricted

It's like comparing the ranger to the fighter and claiming the ranger rocks because he also gets a bazilion "feats" compared to the fighter, but when you look carefully, are those feats so usefull? Track? +1 against one kind of creature?

The warblade bonus feats draw from a much more restricted list, and his maneuvers and stances are also limited to just a few schools. The fighter isn't.

So you enjoy playing fighters more than warblades?

[AslanCross]

What book is Moonspeaker from?

It's from Races of Eberron. 12 levels long, gets a class feature and spellcasting advancement every level.

[Oslecamo]

So you enjoy playing fighters more than warblades?

Yes, I'll normaly prefer to take fighter levels to get much needed obscure feats to fuel combo/prc X. If I want maneuvers and stances ASAP I dip swordsage or crusader if I cannot afford the BAB loss. The only times I would pick warblade is if I wanted to get into one of the funky IH prcs.

Also, moonspeaker is much weaker than Planar Sheperd, since it doesn't advance the animal companion or the wildshape.

[Fax Celestis]

Also, moonspeaker is much weaker than Planar Sheperd, since it doesn't advance the animal companion or the wildshape.

To be fair, nearly everything else in the entire game is weaker than the Planar Shepherd.

[Oslecamo]

To be fair, nearly everything else in the entire game is weaker than the Planar Shepherd.

Really, what the hell was the designer thinking? I'll advance the spellcasting, animal companion, wildshape, make them all stronger and throw in some extra incredibly powerfull abilities in the middle just for good measure. And it doesn't even need obscure feats or skills for you to enter it.

Not even wizards get prcs that advance their familiars, spellcasting and make them gain extra feats as if they were still taking wizard levels.

I guess the rumors that the wotc writers are/were druid fanboys are not completely unfounded. Really, natural spell was just the begining. Then we had stuff like the fleshraker and the splatbook druid spells that pretty much allow a druid to pretend he's a wizard casting-wise.

[Sinfire Titan]

I guess the rumors that the wotc writers are/were druid fanboys are not completely unfounded. Really, natural spell was just the begining. Then we had stuff like the fleshraker and the splatbook druid spells that pretty much allow a druid to pretend he's a wizard casting-wise.

The early PrCs were based around what the class meant to enter them was supposed to be able to do. Faiths of Eberron is fairly new by printing standards (between CP and PH2 IIRC), but was clearly printed with this mentality.

This is the reason for such imbalance in spellcasting PrCs. They looked at one specific ability, and then tried to build a PrC around it. The results ranged between Green Star Adept and Planar Shepherd/Shadowcraft Mage/Incanatrix, with the latest casting PrCs being reasonably balanced (save for a few specific exceptions).