Updated: Please have a look at my nifty new houserules!

[Divinech]

Hello everyone!

As can be read in the title I finished to modify my new houserules. I already sent them to my fellow gamers, but I am also interested what you guys and gals think!

The update is at post #78 (page 3).

Here is the new Link:
http://s5.directupload.net/file/d/2111/m2l272qv_pdf.htm

The most important changes (which by the are all marked red for your convenience) are:
- ToB classes are now PrC which can be taken at 3rd level
- Eschew Materials is free for Sorcerers
- Ability modifiers for races adjusted
- And some balancing of existing rules (namely the crossbow thing and Knowledge (local))

For the sake of completeness, here the link to the old rules if you want to have a closer look at what I changed:


Link:
http://s3b.directupload.net/file/d/2084/qcrikkz2_pdf.htm
(I hope this link works. If not, please tell me)


So then, let the criticism begin!
(As english is not my first language, I am open for critic on my language/grammer too :smallsmile: )
(Oh, one last thing: if any of you are interested, I can of course send you the pdf or the source file (*.tex) directly. And all of you are free to use the rules yourselves)

[Grumman]

I DO NOT want to turn this thread in a discussion about the balancing of ToB-classes. All of you just have to accept that I think they are too mighty.
In that case, no comment.

[sonofzeal]

Errr.... while I don't want to spawn the old ToB flamewar... you put a massive amount of effort into nerfing them, while leaving all of the Tier 1 classes untouched. A similar ToB nerf could be justified in many games, especially those aiming for a Tier 3 level, but to leave every single one of the worst offenders in the game at full strength, and have a huge chunk of changed dedicated to nerfing just about the only really good options for non-casters, seems... well, odd.

Institute similar limiters on the Tier 1 classes, and I think your game will be better off for it.

[Divinech]

In that case, no comment.
thanks :smallsmile:


Errr.... while I don't want to spawn the old ToB flamewar... you put a massive amount of effort into nerfing them, while leaving all of the Tier 1 classes untouched. A similar ToB nerf could be justified in many games, especially those aiming for a Tier 3 level, but to leave every single one of the worst offenders in the game at full strength, and have a huge chunk of changed dedicated to nerfing just about the only really good options for non-casters, seems... well, odd.

Institute similar limiters on the Tier 1 classes, and I think your game will be better off for it.
To make it short: Yes, I know. But I am 100% sure it's going to work out fine. Let's leave it at that, ok?

[Koury]

thanks :smallsmile:


To make it short: Yes, I know. But I am 100% sure it's going to work out fine. Let's leave it at that, ok?

You ignored his point.

To reitterate: You did nothing to balance the most unbalanced classes in the game. You should look into that.

(Not to put words in your mouth, Zeal)

[PhoenixRivers]

To make it short: Yes, I know. But I am 100% sure it's going to work out fine. Let's leave it at that, ok?

I think he's saying that if you're limiting the ToB classes, the Tier 1 classes need a similar nerf.

He's not saying to remove the ToB restrictions. He's saying that if you consider ToB overpowered, then Wizards and clerics will be far worse. You're ostensibly attempting to balance power levels to a certain level with your nerf. In leaving the Tier 1 classes out of that nerf, you're skewing that.

Second the recommendation: If you're going to nerf ToB, the fullcaster classes need limiters as well.

[Sliver]

If you seek to balance stuff to some standard that you have set or do something else with your houserules, you should say that. If you nerf some stuff but leave more powerful stuff untouched, don't be surprised if the reasoning behind your houserules is questioned.

Say what you are aiming for.

[Drascin]

I'm pretty sure you're all missing the point. He seems to feel that casters are fine, and ToB is overpowered, and wants stuff for that. Yes, we all know that numerically, that's incredibly, incredibly wrong, but you'd be surprised at how much people don't consider stuff "broken" and rather think it as perfectly logical as long as it's a Wizard doing it, because Wizards are supposed to be breaking stuff and they've got daily hard limits and stuff - which is what I presume the OP meant by "me and my fellow gamers agree".

But anyway, can't really help you, OP. I personally feel the ToB classes are at the sweetspot of power, and find that line of thinking extremely disagreeable, so I don't think I can really help in nerfing them, not with a straight face. Sorry.

[PhoenixRivers]

He seems to feel that casters are fine, and ToB is overpowered, and wants stuff for that.

Actually, the OP has not posted any opinions on the balance of Tier 1 classes.

[Runestar]

Your houserules mostly seem very minor and inconsequential. They don't appear to have any purpose beyond nerfing martial adepts. Some don't even make sense (with any given context of what your players will likely be experiencing).

1) Why would a martial adept be wielding a weapon he is not proficient with in the first place?

2) So what if white raven has no key skill? (only drawback I can see is you get a smaller benefit with martial study).

3) Who takes skill focus to begin with?

4) Why would a sorc ever take eschew materials when a spell component pouch can be had at just 5gp (and when metamagic specialist is available?)

5) Fewer maneuvers readied may actually benefit the crusader, because he automatically gets them all back when there are none left. This possibly allows him to cycle through a smaller pool of favoured maneuvers more quickly.

6) Races - unless someone is going to play a half-orc sorc or paladin, no cha penalty is pointless. Is a player going to play an orc PC? Earth subtype seems equally random, unless petrification effects are somehow more common in your game? Not sure about shifters, but half-elves seem like they just might be playable again.

7) Only notable revision I see is natural spell, which makes it a lot more unwieldy to use. Personally, I would just scrap it and institute the druid shapeshift variant from PHB2.

I doubt your houserules will impact gameplay that much, if at all.

[Kurald Galain]

Hello everyone!

As can be read in the title I finished my new houserules. I already sent them to my fellow gamers, but I am also interested what you guys and gals think!

What are your aims and goals for these houserules? Balance? Realism? Speed of play? Something else?

[Drascin]

Actually, the OP has not posted any opinions on the balance of Tier 1 classes.

Not as such directly, no. That's why I said "seems" - primarily extrapolating from his reaction to the very first reply in the thread telling him that Tier 1s are far more broken, being that his response was "I know. But trust me, it's going to work out okay with my group". This seems to imply his group is mostly perfectly fine with Tier 1s being uber, either because they don't use them to their full potential or whatever.

Of course, this is, as already said, just a little assumption from what he's said, not certain truth. For that, we'd need the OP to speak up a bit more, really :smalltongue:.

[CheshireCatAW]

It seems as though you hit the Ranger with a nerf for little reason that I can see. It has been my experience that a Bow-wielding ranger has generally been able to do steady but not outstanding damage and never seemed in need of a nerf. Making him take another feat or risk damaging his own teammate seems like a bad position to put him in. He either takes the feat and loses out on versatility or doesn't take the feat and has the rest of the party cast angry glances on him when he rolls a 1, adding an additional punishment to what is already a missed hit. If you want to keep the mechanic, perhaps roll this bonus into Precise Shot? Most non-rangers will still not have it and it will highlight the ranged-focused Ranger a little bit more.

Losing the buckler bonus to ranged attacks seems... well... like extra bookkeeping for no real reason I can see. I've never had bucklers be a problem in ranged combat. I suppose this could also be another nerf vs the Ranger, since they can carry bucklers with them and not have to give up shooting to do it (well, except on the rounds he fires, but that's normal)

Primary among the things I find missing are the lack of any real nerfs against full casters. The only thing that could truly apply is that any caster that can select any spell must have that spell list customized during character creation. This seems more like a trap, since a new character will not know better (so as to change his spells that might be useful) while an experienced player should have plenty of room to place all the spells he wants.

I like the terminal velocity damage having been figured out.

I, personally, use the retroactive skill points as well. I've not found it unbalancing and, with some players, it makes it much easier to figure out how many Skill points they should have. We all know that type.

Sorc's getting EM for familiars is a pretty widespread house rule. It's not bad. I generally give them a little more love (find some way to give them bloodline feats or the like so they have a reason to stay Sorc till 20) but I also try and boost the non-casters a bit as well to compensate. That having been said, having a Sorc with EM (and feats for me) instead of a wizard in a party; you should still notice that they're not as effective or versatile.

I love the premade summons' cards. I use them myself. It saves a ton of time.

Knowledge (Local) was made into many different types when I played in the Forgotten Realms. What I noticed is that people stopped putting points in it because they expected they would travel somewhere else and lose those points, basically. Perhaps add a note to the Knowledge (local) skill that after a certain amount of time at the location and after a few gather info checks the skill then applies to the new area as well. It usually lets me expound the narrative and the players enjoy RPing getting to know the community and it's recent history.

Natural Spell as a metamagic feat I may try, though I'm thinking +1 is not enough. This, however, is baseless supposition on my part. I've never had a player druid go crazy with that feat.

You already know the general stand on ToB and I also agree.

All in all? Not bad house rules. I wouldn't use most of them, but the impact of them seem to be more paperwork and less actual balancing. Give some more love to the non-full casters is my only suggestion.

[PhoenixRivers]

Not as such directly, no. That's why I said "seems" - primarily extrapolating from his reaction to the very first reply in the thread telling him that Tier 1s are far more broken, being that his response was "I know. But trust me, it's going to work out okay with my group". This seems to imply his group is mostly perfectly fine with Tier 1s being uber, either because they don't use them to their full potential or whatever.

Of course, this is, as already said, just a little assumption from what he's said, not certain truth. For that, we'd need the OP to speak up a bit more, really :smalltongue:.

See, I assumed that to be a language barrier/misunderstanding, as the OP stated english wasn't his first language, and even acknowledged an imperfect grasp of it. So I feel the first course of action is to clarify. If, after clarification, the comment remains, then I will move to other steps.

[Divinech]

First of all, thanks for all the replies. I'll be answering them now:


(...) This seems to imply his group is mostly perfectly fine with Tier 1s being uber, either because they don't use them to their full potential or whatever. (...).
Pretty much this. We have a wizard in the group, but I am sure the player won't use the full potential. But we had a warblade (who now plays a homebrewed ToB-class) that already broke some low-level encounters. So unless the wizard does break something, I see no need to nerf it. And to clarify: the ToB-classes mostly lost some flexibilty and some maneuvers. This should hurt only in the low levels and in the high levels it should be ok again. Of course, this needs to be play tested.





1) Why would a martial adept be wielding a weapon he is not proficient with in the first place?
2) So what if white raven has no key skill? (only drawback I can see is you get a smaller benefit with martial study).
3) Who takes skill focus to begin with?
4) Why would a sorc ever take eschew materials when a spell component pouch can be had at just 5gp (and when metamagic specialist is available?)
5) Fewer maneuvers readied may actually benefit the crusader, because he automatically gets them all back when there are none left. This possibly allows him to cycle through a smaller pool of favoured maneuvers more quickly.
6) Races - unless someone is going to play a half-orc sorc or paladin, no cha penalty is pointless. Is a player going to play an orc PC? Earth subtype seems equally random, unless petrification effects are somehow more common in your game? Not sure about shifters, but half-elves seem like they just might be playable again.
7) Only notable revision I see is natural spell, which makes it a lot more unwieldy to use. Personally, I would just scrap it and institute the druid shapeshift variant from PHB2.
8) I doubt your houserules will impact gameplay that much, if at all.
1) I just thought of Insightful Strike with a pen. Seemed silly so I added this rule.
2) I just thought its silly to have diplomacy as a leadship skill. Leadership is the sum of many skills and abilities (diplomacy, perform, maybe intimidate, charisma in general...), so I made this rule.
3) The Warblade had it to max concentration and the wizard took it to make tumble a class skill. Personally, I am no fan of it, but it can have its uses.
4) Style. I don't lilke the fact that a sorcerer relies on his pouch. But then again, I never played one... The rule is just there, so that a sorcerer has the option to take Eschew Materials if he wants. Nothing big.
5) hm, interesting. i haven't thought about that yet...
6) I didn't like the unsymmetric abilities. And shifters and especially half-elves are now quite a good choice.
7) hm, dunno. But since we don't have a druid atm, I didn't spend much time. I just thought Natural Spell can potentially break the game...
8) Well, it wasn't my intention to make a full revision of the game :smallsmile:


What are your aims and goals for these houserules? Balance? Realism? Speed of play? Something else?
A little bit of everything actually. They are just my thoughts to make the game a little more fun for everyone.




It seems as though you hit the Ranger with a nerf for little reason that I can see. It has been my experience that a Bow-wielding ranger has generally been able to do steady but not outstanding damage and never seemed in need of a nerf. Making him take another feat or risk damaging his own teammate seems like a bad position to put him in. He either takes the feat and loses out on versatility or doesn't take the feat and has the rest of the party cast angry glances on him when he rolls a 1, adding an additional punishment to what is already a missed hit. If you want to keep the mechanic, perhaps roll this bonus into Precise Shot? Most non-rangers will still not have it and it will highlight the ranged-focused Ranger a little bit more.

Losing the buckler bonus to ranged attacks seems... well... like extra bookkeeping for no real reason I can see. I've never had bucklers be a problem in ranged combat. I suppose this could also be another nerf vs the Ranger, since they can carry bucklers with them and not have to give up shooting to do it (well, except on the rounds he fires, but that's normal)

Primary among the things I find missing are the lack of any real nerfs against full casters. The only thing that could truly apply is that any caster that can select any spell must have that spell list customized during character creation. This seems more like a trap, since a new character will not know better (so as to change his spells that might be useful) while an experienced player should have plenty of room to place all the spells he wants.

I like the terminal velocity damage having been figured out.

I, personally, use the retroactive skill points as well. I've not found it unbalancing and, with some players, it makes it much easier to figure out how many Skill points they should have. We all know that type.

Sorc's getting EM for familiars is a pretty widespread house rule. It's not bad. I generally give them a little more love (find some way to give them bloodline feats or the like so they have a reason to stay Sorc till 20) but I also try and boost the non-casters a bit as well to compensate. That having been said, having a Sorc with EM (and feats for me) instead of a wizard in a party; you should still notice that they're not as effective or versatile.

I love the premade summons' cards. I use them myself. It saves a ton of time.

Knowledge (Local) was made into many different types when I played in the Forgotten Realms. What I noticed is that people stopped putting points in it because they expected they would travel somewhere else and lose those points, basically. Perhaps add a note to the Knowledge (local) skill that after a certain amount of time at the location and after a few gather info checks the skill then applies to the new area as well. It usually lets me expound the narrative and the players enjoy RPing getting to know the community and it's recent history.

Natural Spell as a metamagic feat I may try, though I'm thinking +1 is not enough. This, however, is baseless supposition on my part. I've never had a player druid go crazy with that feat.

You already know the general stand on ToB and I also agree.

All in all? Not bad house rules. I wouldn't use most of them, but the impact of them seem to be more paperwork and less actual balancing. Give some more love to the non-full casters is my only suggestion.
1) Ranger trouble: It still will be a small chance, maybe about 20-30% if he really rolls a 1. But I expect we forget the rule during play. I don't see it as a big problem.
2) Buckler trouble: We have alot of buckler-usage in our group. The idea behind the rule is to make light shields viable again. Most times the deadly attacks are melee attacks or spells anyway...
3) Full Caster trouble: As I said above, I don't think this is going to be much of a problem.
4) Termincal Velocity: Someone posted this rule here in the forums and I shamelessly used it as well :smallsmile:
5) Retroactively gaining skill points: Yeah, its really hard to count your skill points especially if you are a multiclass character. This rule makes things so much simpler.
6) Socerers: yeah, I don't like Sorcerers very much because of the lack of flexibility. And I have no idea to make them more flexible. I think the easiest way would be to create a PrC for them.
7) Knowledge (local): I added the retraining option for that (normally I don't allow retraining). The only question is how long the "fair amount of time" is. This needs playtesting, so that Knowledge (local, region) is still a viable option.
8) Natural Spell: I have no experience with druid-abuse either. I play a druid in a campaign, but somehome I managed to make him utterly useless. So this is going to need playtesting and some modifications may be necessary.
9) Your last paragraph: Thanks :smallsmile: . My group currently constist of a wizard (the one who won't use the class to it's max potential), a rogue and a Blade Adept (the homebrew ToB-Class). So far I don't see the need to boost other classes. Everyone has skills and abilites that are absolutly necessary for survival. If I see that some unbalance starts to grow, that can't be handled by my awesome DM-skills, I might make some new houserules. But until that happens, I see no real need to do so :smallsmile:

[Otodetu]

I don't agree with many of your changes.

race tweaks, good.

retroactive skill points, good.

The rest is just strange and unnecessary. (okay the ignore hardness strike is sort of silly I have to agree.)

[magic9mushroom]

Relying on the wizard not to break the game might not be the best of ideas. I mean, you obviously look for help online, what happens if he takes a leaf out of your book?

[Sliver]

Did you ask for input from your players? If you are just looking to make the game fun for your group, then you should ask for input from them.. Here you won't be getting more then random approval/disapproval.. We don't know your group or style..

[Divinech]

Relying on the wizard not to break the game might not be the best of ideas. I mean, you obviously look for help online, what happens if he takes a leaf out of your book?
Well, then I'm screwed. But I doubt that will happen any time soon. I've been playing with the same people for about 8 or 10 years and we are all good friends. If anything happens, we will work it out somehow. But thanks for your concern (everyone's concern acutally :smallsmile: )



Did you ask for input from your players? If you are just looking to make the game fun for your group, then you should ask for input from them.. Here you won't be getting more then random approval/disapproval.. We don't know your group or style..
The idea behind me posting this here was that you people could spot things I didn't anticipate. For example, I now realized that the buckler-ruling would cause more bookkeeping, which is bad. And the nerf on the crusader could actually make him stronger (it's still a silly class though...). I don't know all the rules very well, e.g. I still have to look up the grapple or trip rules everytime they come up. So I just wanted to check if I missed something, that could be horribly abused (apart from not nerfing other Tier 1 classes of course :smallwink: ) or is just completely wrong or too much work etc. And I was curious what other people think about them.
I know that our game style is kind of special, but it didn't hurt to get some more input about my ruling :smallsmile:
Some of the rulings are from my players, mainly the buckler-rule and the fumbles. About half of the rules I took from postings on the net.

Edit: Oh, and of course to share my houserules. I already did the work and it took more time to create them than expected. So I might as well share them with other people.

[Greenish]

Reducing skill points for warblade and crusader seems a bit silly. It doesn't affect their performance in combat much, if at all, but means they can't invest to fun stuff such as diplomacy/intimidate or martial lore.

Other than that, the races changes seem nice, although I'd give half-orcs a penalty to charisma instead of intelligence, but that's just me.

Also, I disagree with your assessment of relative strengths of classes, but it's true that ToB classes are more self-optimizing than the core ones.

[GoC]

I have to say one thing about the rules: Yes, I nerfed the ToB-classes a little. That is because I think (and all my fellow gamers agree) that they are overpowered. They just don't fit neither our game-play nor our powerlevel. I DO NOT want to turn this thread in a discussion about the balancing of ToB-classes. All of you just have to accept that I think they are too mighty.
...
No comment.

[Divinech]

Reducing skill points for warblade and crusader seems a bit silly. It doesn't affect their performance in combat much, if at all, but means they can't invest to fun stuff such as diplomacy/intimidate or martial lore.

Other than that, the races changes seem nice, although I'd give half-orcs a penalty to charisma instead of intelligence, but that's just me.

Also, I disagree with your assessment of relative strengths of classes, but it's true that ToB classes are more self-optimizing than the core ones.
The idea behind reducing the skill points was to make the classes less flexible. They still are highly capable fighters who can quickly end a combat. But they have to specialize for it. Now they can't be the jack of all trades. And if they want to invest in the "fun stuff", they have to sacrifice something, like any other class.
And about the half-orcs: I was thinking long and hard which ability penalty to drop. I couldn't really decide. So I just chose Charisma. That was simply an arbitrary decision...



...
No comment.
Is it me or is this post utterly useless?

[Greenish]

The idea behind reducing the skill points was to make the classes less flexible. They still are highly capable fighters who can quickly end a combat. But they have to specialize for it. Now they can't be the jack of all trades. How does having Diplomacy or Martial Lore make them "jacks of all trades"? It gives them something they can do if it's not a fight. They still lack the right skills to be skill monkeys.
And if they want to invest in the "fun stuff", they have to sacrifice something, like any other class.Uhm, well, keep telling that to yourself.
And about the half-orcs: I was thinking long and hard which ability penalty to drop. I couldn't really decide. So I just chose Charisma. That was simply an arbitrary decision...My reasoning here is that when you mix a human and an orc, the result should (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics) be more able learner than an orc, on basis of having human blood. Charisma penalty would come from both being an orc, and being a half-blood (and thus not appealing to either side).

[sofawall]

Is it me or is this post utterly useless?

He's saying he has a problem with your houserules, but you asked not to talk about them. It's a way to show disapproval without causing a holy war.

[Dragonmuncher]

Originally Posted by Divinech View Post
And if they want to invest in the "fun stuff", they have to sacrifice something, like any other class.

Uhm, well, keep telling that to yourself.

This is a good point. Why, exactly do they have to sacrifice something to have "fun stuff?" The game is supposed to be fun- and if everyone has access to the same fun stuff, it won't be unbalancing.


My other suggestion is about the Sorcerer. It's a caster, so it doesn't really need a power buff, but I'd say take a look at the alternate class features and bloodline abilities that are around.

Give them Eschew Materials for free- how often do the material pouches really come up? The players will see it as something cool Sorcerers get. Then let them give up their familiar (if they want to) for something equally neat.

[Greenish]

Give them Eschew Materials for free- how often do the material pouches really come up? The players will see it as something cool Sorcerers get.Oh yeah, I was going to mention that, but I forgot. I think it makes sense from fluff and helps further differentiate between wizards and sorcerers.

[ericgrau]

A +2 to hit makes crossbows much better than any bow for almost all classes. Except maybe a high strength character... that's still using a bow late game. People have a tendancy to underestimate the impact of AB bonuses. Even a +1 would be strong, though perhaps only slightly better than or equal to a composite bow. Plus you need a feat to get multiple attacks with a crossbow, so the decision is not without cost. Try +1.

The "local" in knowledge(local) is a misnomer. If you look at the rules for it it means the word in a sense more like "localities" not "around wherever you are". For example, you don't know about goblinoids by knowing about Aundair or any city for that matter. If it makes you feel better, change "local" into another word. Maybe "civilization" or "streetwise". Don't make the already minor skill so specialized that no one wants to take it.

Most everything else (not counting ToB stuff) is fairly minor, and shouldn't impact the game much. Sure, go for it.

[Godskook]

I'm confused.

You say:
"I want commentary on my houserules"
"I don't want commentary on my ToB houserules"

Yet, over 25% of your houserules are ToB nerfs, and nerfing ToB but allowing it provokes commentary on the other high-tiered classes you *don't* nerf. That's one hell of a mixed message on a forum that thinks that ToB is a good thing.

As for things I can comment on without mentioning the elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room):
-Skill Focus is too weak anyways. I suggest rolling both benefits into a single instance of taking the feat.
-Outside of tier 1 casters, limiting spell lists like you're doing isn't useful. The Warmage/Beguiler/DreadNecro are low-powered enough without nerfing.
-Retro-active skillpoints are a good thing. I approve.
-The Natural Spell nerf is nice. It makes it harder, while at the same time, not taking away what its there to do. Probably far and away the most elegant change you've made.
-The shooting into melee de-nerf is laughable. The loss of versimilitude is horrible.

[sonofzeal]

To make it short: Yes, I know. But I am 100% sure it's going to work out fine. Let's leave it at that, ok?
Here's a couple things I've found through play that help....

- ToB legitimately can be overpowered in the level 1-4 range. They're a step above martial classes, and casters haven't really bloomed yet. If you're playing in this range, then I think your rules are good. I'd do something to weaken the Druid's Animal Companion though, as that's also overpowered at this level range.

- Things start unravelling in the 5-12 level range. Druids get Wild Shape (and I like your Natural Spell change, but I'd consider also banning Wildling Clasps), Clerics get Divine Power + Righteous Might (I'd consider nerfing the BAB-boost), and both become better fighters than the Fighter, and probably on par with pre-nerf ToB even before they start really using their other magic. Wizards are still casting every spell in every book, and Sorcerers start getting their exclusive Dragon Magic spells. Poorly optimized casters will still be fairly balanced in this range, but Fighters and Monks and such will rapidly become difficult to play unless the user's a pro.

- By levels 13-20, even poorly optimized casters are massive powerhouses of destruction and pwnage, and your ToB nerfs are severely damaging just about the only chance for a non-caster to keep up.


In short, I feel that your houserules are only appropriate in a fairly small level range. If you plan to play beyond that, I strongly recommend you reconsider. I recommend placing significant limiters on the Tier 1 class. I highly recommend boosting Fighter/Monk/etc. If you're worried that much about ToB, consider treating them like PrCs that can be entered at, say, level 3 (and the first two levels don't count towards Initiator Level). That limits them at the levels they need to be limited for, without instituting a large number of changes that'll cause pain at high level.

[Otodetu]

I have always seen tomb of battle as an apology from wizards: "Yes, we failed when we designed the paladin, fighter, and monk, here are some replacements you can have if you pay us."

The martial system is even designed in a manner that screams: "Yes, mr fighter, do take your next level as a warblade level, here is cream and candy if you do so"

Sorry if this is heading towards a tob discussion...

On you buckler rules; how about just increasing light and heavy shield ac with 1, that way buckler is 1, light shield 2, and heavy 3. Now everything makes sense.

[Pluto]

First, I'll say that I like Natural Spell and the Race changes. Those are good rules.

But most of these are overly fiddly and don't affect anything.

I would scrap them if I were you; extraneous rules are a headache and drag down the pace of the came.

The "hurt people on rolls of one" rules are silly, especially the one for ranged attacks. There's no reason to make Fighters worse at what they do.
Taking skill points away from any class rubs me the wrong way. Especially non-casters. Giving all other non-casters 2 more skill points per level seems like a much better solution. It's silly that any character should be as incompetent as a core Paladin or Fighter (who can jump and look scary and do nothing else).
The Sorcerer thing doesn't matter because it's a silly trade. Just give all Sorcerers Eschew Materials. It'll be like giving them 15gp extra at level 1 and then won't ever matter again.
The Buckler-ranged defense thing means one more number to track for no reason.
Taking away White Raven's skill is silly. If you don't want them to have Diplomacy (which is fitting), give it Intimidate or something. Leaving it empty is meaningless and awkward.
The Polymorph change doesn't matter unless your characters are new-borns.
Iron Heart Surge is too cool to discard IMO. Common sense gets rid of the craziness.
The Mountain Hammer change is inconsequencial. It still lets my Warblade burrow out of prison with a comb.


What tickles me is that you don't address the things that are game-changing in ToB, like White Raven Tactics.

So, yeah. Too much fiddling, too many rules with too little consequence. Scrap 'em.




If you want to nerf the ToB classes, I recommend turning them into easy-entrance PrCs.

Make the Crusader and Warblade require BA 4 and 7 ranks in one of their discipline's skills and make the Swordsage require BA 3 and 7 ranks in 3 discipline skills.

That way, you dodge the part of the game where the classes are comparatively OP (levels 1-4) and still stay around the classes' normal progressions for levels 5-20, allowing melee characters to actually scale at about the same rate as Wizards, Clerics and the like.

[sofawall]

Do note that the "hurt yourself on a natural one" thing was only with weapon you aren't proficient it.

[HunterOfJello]

I think nerfing ToB and no other classes is pretty dumb. If you dislike them why not just ban the book?

If you dislike the ToB classes at early levels then turning them into prestige classes like Pluto said is a great idea.

Also, if you are going to nerf them then you may want to reevaluate removing Tumble as a warblade class skill. Tumble is an important skill for many if not most of the Tiger Claw maneuvers and Tiger Claw is a quintessential warblade martial adept school . Are you trying to nerf that one school specifically along with each of the classes?

[PhoenixRivers]

The idea behind reducing the skill points was to make the classes less flexible. They still are highly capable fighters who can quickly end a combat. But they have to specialize for it. Now they can't be the jack of all trades. And if they want to invest in the "fun stuff", they have to sacrifice something, like any other class.Except casters.

And about the half-orcs: I was thinking long and hard which ability penalty to drop. I couldn't really decide. So I just chose Charisma. That was simply an arbitrary decision..No rule change should ever be arbitrary. If there needs to be a change, there needs to be a justified reason for the change. Otherwise, it's needless complication. That helps nothing.

[Divinech]

First of all: I thank everyone foryour reply, even if I forgot to mention it in my response to your answer/question.
And I hope I didn't overlook a posting/question/answer. This thread is getting a bit to big. I didn't anticipate that... So if I actually did overlook sth, please nudge me to the correct direction :smallwink:
And I think my english is getting worse. Too much writing of responses. Sorry about that :smallredface:


How does having Diplomacy or Martial Lore make them "jacks of all trades"? It gives them something they can do if it's not a fight. They still lack the right skills to be skill monkeys.Uhm, well, keep telling that to yourself.
Sorry, I guess I used some poor wording. Let me try to explain it like this: ToB-classes specialize in combat. Their whole training focused on that. Thus they get maneuvers and a high bab. But only some skills, and only those that are related to physical activity. I really don't see a need for them to get many skills. 2+Int is enough to get those skills they need for maneuvers. If you wanna be the negotiator or sage, another class would be more appropriate. If you wanna dominate melee combat, the ToB-classes are your friend. I never liked that a ToB-class could be good at so many things, that just doesn't fit their concept. But then again, that is only my opinion. And my guess would be, that most of you disagree...


My reasoning here is that when you mix a human and an orc, the result should (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics) be more able learner than an orc, on basis of having human blood. Charisma penalty would come from both being an orc, and being a half-blood (and thus not appealing to either side).
Hm, makes sense. I might change that...



My other suggestion is about the Sorcerer. It's a caster, so it doesn't really need a power buff, but I'd say take a look at the alternate class features and bloodline abilities that are around.
Give them Eschew Materials for free- how often do the material pouches really come up? The players will see it as something cool Sorcerers get. Then let them give up their familiar (if they want to) for something equally neat.
I gave them Eschew Materials for free at an early version of my houserules. It really fits their concept and doesn't unbalance at all. I think I might give it to them after all...



A +2 to hit makes crossbows much better than any bow for almost all classes. Except maybe a high strength character... that's still using a bow late game. People have a tendancy to underestimate the impact of AB bonuses. Even a +1 would be strong, though perhaps only slightly better than or equal to a composite bow. Plus you need a feat to get multiple attacks with a crossbow, so the decision is not without cost. Try +1.
I don't understand your reasoning. You need a feat to get more attacks with a light crossbow (a heavy one is still at the 1 attack per round). And even then you do 1d8 damage (plus enhancement bonus). There is no easy/cheap way to get a higher damage output. So I don't see the problem with giving a +2 bonus. Could you elabore a little? :smallconfused:


The "local" in knowledge(local) is a misnomer. If you look at the rules for it it means the word in a sense more like "localities" not "around wherever you are". For example, you don't know about goblinoids by knowing about Aundair or any city for that matter. If it makes you feel better, change "local" into another word. Maybe "civilization" or "streetwise". Don't make the already minor skill so specialized that no one wants to take it.
That makes so much sense that it scares me. I mostly used Knowledge (local) to get info about the place I am currently at. This means my ruling need some changes. Thanks :smallsmile:




I'm confused.

You say:
"I want commentary on my houserules"
"I don't want commentary on my ToB houserules"

Yet, over 25% of your houserules are ToB nerfs, and nerfing ToB but allowing it provokes commentary on the other high-tiered classes you *don't* nerf. That's one hell of a mixed message on a forum that thinks that ToB is a good thing.
Well, I can totally understand all of you. This really is confusing. But I don't know how to explain better, that wizards/etc are not such a big problem (in our group). It has to do with our game style and other stuff too. So I hoped that you could all accept my opinion about ToB and fullcasters. :smallredface:


As for things I can comment on without mentioning the elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room):
1)Skill Focus is too weak anyways. I suggest rolling both benefits into a single instance of taking the feat.
2)Outside of tier 1 casters, limiting spell lists like you're doing isn't useful. The Warmage/Beguiler/DreadNecro are low-powered enough without nerfing.
3)Retro-active skillpoints are a good thing. I approve.
4)The Natural Spell nerf is nice. It makes it harder, while at the same time, not taking away what its there to do. Probably far and away the most elegant change you've made.
5)The shooting into melee de-nerf is laughable. The loss of versimilitude is horrible.
1) Nah, Skill Focus is okay the way have it now. I don't like giving away so much free stuff :smallwink:
2) Dunno... They still have access to new spells from eg the Spell Compendium. They just have to swap out their crappy core spells. This rule really doesn't do anything.
3) yay!
4) yay!
5) versimilitude? No clue what that means, even with a dictionnary :smallconfused:


Here's a couple things I've found through play that help....

- ToB legitimately can be overpowered in the level 1-4 range. They're a step above martial classes, and casters haven't really bloomed yet. If you're playing in this range, then I think your rules are good. I'd do something to weaken the Druid's Animal Companion though, as that's also overpowered at this level range.

- Things start unravelling in the 5-12 level range. Druids get Wild Shape (and I like your Natural Spell change, but I'd consider also banning Wildling Clasps), Clerics get Divine Power + Righteous Might (I'd consider nerfing the BAB-boost), and both become better fighters than the Fighter, and probably on par with pre-nerf ToB even before they start really using their other magic. Wizards are still casting every spell in every book, and Sorcerers start getting their exclusive Dragon Magic spells. Poorly optimized casters will still be fairly balanced in this range, but Fighters and Monks and such will rapidly become difficult to play unless the user's a pro.

- By levels 13-20, even poorly optimized casters are massive powerhouses of destruction and pwnage, and your ToB nerfs are severely damaging just about the only chance for a non-caster to keep up.


In short, I feel that your houserules are only appropriate in a fairly small level range. If you plan to play beyond that, I strongly recommend you reconsider. I recommend placing significant limiters on the Tier 1 class. I highly recommend boosting Fighter/Monk/etc. If you're worried that much about ToB, consider treating them like PrCs that can be entered at, say, level 3 (and the first two levels don't count towards Initiator Level). That limits them at the levels they need to be limited for, without instituting a large number of changes that'll cause pain at high level.
I was aiming to rebalance from level 1-12. But i don't think my nerfs on the ToB-classes hurt much in later levels. Most classes have about a dozen maneuvers at high levels ready in an encounter. Lets subtract my 1 or 2 maneuvers I took and they still have about 10 maneuvers ready in combat. Sure, they lost some flexibility, but the output should be nearly the same. Well, thats my estimation at least. I could be horribly wrong... :smalleek:



On you buckler rules; how about just increasing light and heavy shield ac with 1, that way buckler is 1, light shield 2, and heavy 3. Now everything makes sense.
Hm, nice idea. I'm going to think about it. It makes things so much easier!




1)

Taking away White Raven's skill is silly. If you don't want them to have Diplomacy (which is fitting), give it Intimidate or something. Leaving it empty is meaningless and awkward.
The Polymorph change doesn't matter unless your characters are new-borns.
Iron Heart Surge is too cool to discard IMO. Common sense gets rid of the craziness.
The Mountain Hammer change is inconsequencial. It still lets my Warblade burrow out of prison with a comb.

2) What tickles me is that you don't address the things that are game-changing in ToB, like White Raven Tactics.
3) If you want to nerf the ToB classes, I recommend turning them into easy-entrance PrCs.
I only answer some of your questions/answers, because I think some things start to get redundant in this thread. Please nudge me to another part of your post, if I missed something important :smallwink:
1) Polymorph: Well, i don't know how exactly this is going to work out. With the current ruling I can say that the wizards needs to have seen (aka experienced) a dragon with his own eye to polymorph into that form. The rule exist primarily to control some forms. I really don't know which strong polymorph-forms are out there. So I wanna use it as a fail-safe rule.
Iron Heart Surge: I don't like it. Removing damaging effects just seems overpowered for me. And they can do it the whole day!
Mountain Hammer: Its just not balanced against other maneuvers on the same level (I can't give you an example as I don't have a ToB with me atm).
2) White Raven Tactics: Never heard of it, I will look into it.
3) My group thought about that too. But its just more work than simply nerfing and I am a lazy bastard :smallfrown:



I think nerfing ToB and no other classes is pretty dumb. If you dislike them why not just ban the book?
My friend bought it and I don't want it to be a waste of money. That simple.


Also, if you are going to nerf them then you may want to reevaluate removing Tumble as a warblade class skill. Tumble is an important skill for many if not most of the Tiger Claw maneuvers and Tiger Claw is a quintessential warblade martial adept school . Are you trying to nerf that one school specifically along with each of the classes?
Tiger Claw needs tumble? I didn't nerf it intentionally. I will look into that. Thanks for pointing it out.


Edit: Sorry for not posting for a while, I'm busy atm. I will answer all following posts on the weekend.

[sofawall]

I thought Tiger Claw was mainly Jump?

[Greenish]

The Mountain Hammer change is inconsequencial. It still lets my Warblade burrow out of prison with a comb.No, there's also a clause saying that no maneuver ignores hardness anymore (and another saying you can't do it with a weapon you're not proficient with). You'd need an adamantine comb.

[Edit]:
I thought Tiger Claw was mainly Jump?Unless you tumble that jump, you'll eat a lot of AoOs for using many of the maneuvers.

Sorry, I guess I used some poor wording. Let me try to explain it like this: ToB-classes specialize in combat. Their whole training focused on that. Thus they get maneuvers and a high bab. But only some skills, and only those that are related to physical activity. I really don't see a need for them to get many skills. 2+Int is enough to get those skills they need for maneuvers.…And nothing else. Yay for them, they're good at combat and can do nothing else. Just like other classes, except druids, clerics, bards, wizards and rogues (and unnumbered amounts of non-core classes). Like you said, they're still good in combat, which you said causes balance problems, so you're punishing them for that?

If you wanna be the negotiator or sage, another class would be more appropriate. If you wanna dominate melee combat, the ToB-classes are your friend. I never liked that a ToB-class could be good at so many things, that just doesn't fit their concept.[Another edit]: Ignore this, it came out wrong and Tyckspoon below hit this nail in the head anyway. "Warblades live by muscle and steel, but their interaction with the campaign world is not limited to trading sword slashes for talon rakes. These characters are keenly aware of their social standing, and for them, glory and honor are at least as important as gold and gems."

Diplomacy won't fit warblade concept? They train in bloody schools and martial lore and know:history don't fit their concept? Crusader shouldn't be diplomatic?


And why drop tumble from lightly armored melee'ers who are supposed to have good mobility?



Oh well, good thing that being good at many things fits the concepts of casters.

[tyckspoon]

Sorry, I guess I used some poor wording. Let me try to explain it like this: ToB-classes specialize in combat. Their whole training focused on that. Thus they get maneuvers and a high bab. But only some skills, and only those that are related to physical activity. I really don't see a need for them to get many skills. 2+Int is enough to get those skills they need for maneuvers. If you wanna be the negotiator or sage, another class would be more appropriate. If you wanna dominate melee combat, the ToB-classes are your friend. I never liked that a ToB-class could be good at so many things, that just doesn't fit their concept. But then again, that is only my opinion. And my guess would be, that most of you disagree...


Strongly. The concept of a class that fights and only fights is a fundamentally poor concept, and it's not the concept ToB is built on. The ToB classes are designed to be more flexible than that, especially the Warblade- you're supposed to be able to take it and make the frenzied berserking meatgrinder, the stalwart master-of-many-weapons, the shielded battlefield defender, and the smooth swordsman who is as comfortable seducing a noblewoman as he is putting down a street gang... and make them all work from the same base class without resorting to the unseemly mess of multiclasses and ACF and feat-diving you otherwise have to use. Reducing them to Fighter + Maneuvers is wildly missing the point.

[sofawall]

No, there's also a clause saying that no maneuver ignores hardness anymore (and another saying you can't do it with a weapon you're not proficient with). You'd need an adamantine comb.

[Edit]:Unless you tumble that jump, you'll eat a lot of AoOs for using many of the maneuvers.

Most of the maneuvers don't provoke from the guy you're jumping at, and many don't provoke, period. In my play from 4-7 as a Warblade, so far, using mainly Tiger Claw, I've yet to provoke.

[Greenish]

Most of the maneuvers don't provoke from the guy you're jumping at, and many don't provoke, period. In my play from 4-7 as a Warblade, so far, using mainly Tiger Claw, I've yet to provoke.Meh, I figured that's what he meant, but I'm not too familiar with Tiger Claw. Off the top of my head, the only provoking ones are Sudden Leap and Death From Above, but since many of them include jumping, one would think they could provoke if you don't tumble.

[Edit]:
Strongly. The concept of a class that fights and only fights is a fundamentally poor concept, and it's not the concept ToB is built on. The ToB classes are designed to be more flexible than that, especially the Warblade- you're supposed to be able to take it and make the frenzied berserking meatgrinder, the stalwart master-of-many-weapons, the shielded battlefield defender, and the smooth swordsman who is as comfortable seducing a noblewoman as he is putting down a street gang... and make them all work from the same base class without resorting to the unseemly mess of multiclasses and ACF and feat-diving you otherwise have to use. Reducing them to Fighter + Maneuvers is wildly missing the point.You said it better than I could. Please, have an internet. http://stuff.orly.ch/img/blog/zomg-you-ve-won-internet.gif

[sofawall]

Meh, I figured that's what he meant, but I'm not too familiar with Tiger Claw. Off the top of my head, the only provoking ones are Sudden Leap and Death From Above, but since many of them include jumping, one would think they could provoke if you don't tumble.]

Well, from my experience, you tend to roll checks, but you don't actually jump (for whatever reason).

[Greenish]

Well, from my experience, you tend to roll checks, but you don't actually jump (for whatever reason).Hmm, then I just got distracted by fluff. Oh well, won't be the last time I notice afterwards I've been talking out of my buttocks.

[sonofzeal]

I was aiming to rebalance from level 1-12. But i don't think my nerfs on the ToB-classes hurt much in later levels. Most classes have about a dozen maneuvers at high levels ready in an encounter. Lets subtract my 1 or 2 maneuvers I took and they still have about 10 maneuvers ready in combat. Sure, they lost some flexibility, but the output should be nearly the same. Well, thats my estimation at least. I could be horribly wrong... :smalleek:
Er, are you confusing the "Maneuvers Known" with the "Maneuvers readied" column?

At level 9, when a Wizard with 20 Int has about 30 spells prepped (depending on the build; many go with Focused Specialists, who will have more), the Warblade only has 4 maneuvers readied. That's tiny at that level, and almost any decent fight can eat through those in a couple round. Their pool of tricks is small; reducing that even farther is crippling. I could see a solid argument that they should have less in the level 1-4 range, but past that they almost don't have enough. They don't have "about a dozen", they don't even have half that at the level range you're pointing to. Swordsage does, but Swordsage is fighting to overcome lower BAB/HD anyway.

As to the Swordsage - they're intended to be a light-armor class, with the AC bonus and evasion as a reward for sticking with that, but now there's nothing preventing them from taking a single dip in just about anything and wearing Fullplate everywhere. Basically, by removing those elements, you remove one of the key things that made it visually distinct as a Martial Adept.

As to the Crusader, are you also reducing the Maneuvers Granted column? If so, you're really throwing a serious wrench into their playability since that number's already so small. If not, you're actually increasing turnaround rate for recharging maneuvers, which will allow them to use their most powerful maneuvers more often... but pretty much preventing them from taking any of the more "useful" or "clever" or "fun" ones. Crusaders already have a tough time readying less immediately-useful maneuvers, since they might randomly draw all of those and none of the heavy hitters. Reducing it further isn't going to help, it'll just make them spam the one or two bigger ones they have instead.



Again, here's my recommendation - require BAB +2 before taking levels in a Martial Adept, and have those two not count towards Initiator Level. Easy, clean, elegant, and works for all three without massive rules changes. It makes them less of a force in the low levels, but keeps them competitive in the higher levels. It also won't feel so much like an "omg neeeerf".

I'd also recommend putting the Druid's Animal Companion behind by two levels (gained at 3rd, gains extra HD at 5th, can take more advanced forms at 6th) and restricting purchase of Wildling Clasps, restricting the Wizard's ability to purchase scrolls for his books (make spellbookable scrolls something special that you can add as loot or that he has the hunt down specific ones), and using the Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) variant (coupled with a limit to how far Divine Power can boost your BAB).

But that's just me.

[ericgrau]

I don't understand your reasoning. You need a feat to get more attacks with a light crossbow (a heavy one is still at the 1 attack per round). And even then you do 1d8 damage (plus enhancement bonus). There is no easy/cheap way to get a higher damage output. So I don't see the problem with giving a +2 bonus. Could you elabore a little? :smallconfused:
Sneak attack, magic enchantments for both bow and ammo, and the strategic advantage of range weapons in general. An archer is going to have dex as his main stat, and strength 2nd at best. That's only a couple points of damage until high levels, at which point you also have enchanted bows. Each +1 to hit OTOH is about 7% more hits (and 7% more damage) for full BAB classes and 10% more hits for mid BAB classes like rogues. When a high level character is pumping out 50 or even hundreds of damage in the round, adding 15-20% is redonkulous. A few points of strength damage, not so much.

Even at very low levels composite bows are a bit expensive, and smart players are probably using slings over both weapons. It is a very narrow range where a composite bow might give maybe 1 more damage if crossbows had +2 to hit. Otherwise the +2 crossbow is head and shoulders above the rest in all other situations. Really even the +1 is pushing it, but ok since it does cost a feat to get full attacks.

Btw, this logic applies to +1's to AB in general. The best martial feat when sticking to core is weapon focus hands down. It's only when splatbooks let you auto-hit or get ridiculous damage with other feats that weapon focus becomes obsolete.

[Godskook]

1) Nah, Skill Focus is okay the way have it now. I don't like giving away so much free stuff :smallwink:

Its not *FREE*. It *COSTS* a feat. You get 8 of them before you're on par with some *GODS*. They should do something decent, and getting a skill as a class skill, and getting a +3 to it isn't even decent.


2) Dunno... They still have access to new spells from eg the Spell Compendium. They just have to swap out their crappy core spells. This rule really doesn't do anything.

Then why have it.


5) versimilitude? No clue what that means, even with a dictionnary :smallconfused:

1.Nevermind. I was under a different impression of what the rules were.

2.Versimilitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude)


I was aiming to rebalance from level 1-12. But i don't think my nerfs on the ToB-classes hurt much in later levels. Most classes have about a dozen maneuvers at high levels ready in an encounter. Lets subtract my 1 or 2 maneuvers I took and they still have about 10 maneuvers ready in combat. Sure, they lost some flexibility, but the output should be nearly the same. Well, thats my estimation at least. I could be horribly wrong... :smalleek:

ToB is surprisingly balanced to work in specific ways. There's intricacies to the system's Maneuvers slots and such that can only be appreciated by spending time attempting to homebrew off it. The 'level appropriate' timing is very specific, and easy to muck with.

For instance, most stances become available at levels where you'd normally get a new stance known, except most notably, Devoted Spirit's most powerful stance. I personally suspect that's intentional to make that stance 'cost' an additional feat due to how powerful it is, since Crusader 20 can't ever claim it without a feat.

[Divinech]

Again thanks to everyone who offered helpful suggestions, even if I didn't answer every single one :smallsmile:


Unless you tumble that jump, you'll eat a lot of AoOs for using many of the maneuvers
Ah, okay. I'll think about that. I remember a discussion here that the use jump always provokes AoO even if you don't move at all... Thanks for pointing that out.


.…And nothing else. Yay for them, they're good at combat and can do nothing else. Just like other classes, except druids, clerics, bards, wizards and rogues (and unnumbered amounts of non-core classes). Like you said, they're still good in combat, which you said causes balance problems, so you're punishing them for that?
Meh, I disagree. Caster aren't good at everything, at least imho. They CAN be good at lot of things, but only if they sacrifice other capabilities and they only can do it so many times a day.
And yes, it would be great to rebalance some spells (Knock and other spells come to mind), but I am a lazy bastard and simply don't have the time to do so. If a spell actually does cause problems (which didn't happen in 3 years of playing D&D 3.5), I will discuss it with the player and possibly adjust the spell accordingly.



And why drop tumble from lightly armored melee'ers who are supposed to have good mobility?
They are not lightly armored. They are medium and thus not inherently a mobile class. Like the barbarian, who doesn't have tumble. That simple.




Strongly. The concept of a class that fights and only fights is a fundamentally poor concept, and it's not the concept ToB is built on. The ToB classes are designed to be more flexible than that, especially the Warblade- you're supposed to be able to take it and make the frenzied berserking meatgrinder, the stalwart master-of-many-weapons, the shielded battlefield defender, and the smooth swordsman who is as comfortable seducing a noblewoman as he is putting down a street gang... and make them all work from the same base class without resorting to the unseemly mess of multiclasses and ACF and feat-diving you otherwise have to use. Reducing them to Fighter + Maneuvers is wildly missing the point.
I guess we simply have different opinions about what ToB-classes are about. When I read the fluff of the classes (at least the warblade one), it pretty clears told me: Warblades are good at hitting stuff and don't like talking. Or in other words: we strike first and ask question later, if at all. But maybe thats just me :smallsmile:




Again, here's my recommendation - require BAB +2 before taking levels in a Martial Adept, and have those two not count towards Initiator Level. Easy, clean, elegant, and works for all three without massive rules changes. It makes them less of a force in the low levels, but keeps them competitive in the higher levels. It also won't feel so much like an "omg neeeerf".
Yeah, that's probably the better idea. That way I can leave the manauvers as they are now. And it's less confusing as my rules now. I will think about changing it that way.



I'd also recommend putting the Druid's Animal Companion behind by two levels (gained at 3rd, gains extra HD at 5th, can take more advanced forms at 6th) and restricting purchase of Wildling Clasps, restricting the Wizard's ability to purchase scrolls for his books (make spellbookable scrolls something special that you can add as loot or that he has the hunt down specific ones), and using the Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) variant (coupled with a limit to how far Divine Power can boost your BAB).
Never heard of Wildling Clasps. And since we don't have a druid in the group atm (which won't change any time soon), nerfing the druids is not my priority. Spellbookable scrolls are a good idea too. Thanks for the helpful suggestions :smallsmile:
Also, in my campaign spells of level 5 or higher are not widely available, since the most powerful inhabitants are about lvl 11 to 12. Therefore almost no scrolls of these spells exist and it isn't possible to copy them from other people's spellbooks.




Sneak attack, magic enchantments for both bow and ammo, and the strategic advantage of range weapons in general. An archer is going to have dex as his main stat, and strength 2nd at best. That's only a couple points of damage until high levels, at which point you also have enchanted bows. Each +1 to hit OTOH is about 7% more hits (and 7% more damage) for full BAB classes and 10% more hits for mid BAB classes like rogues. When a high level character is pumping out 50 or even hundreds of damage in the round, adding 15-20% is redonkulous. A few points of strength damage, not so much.

Even at very low levels composite bows are a bit expensive, and smart players are probably using slings over both weapons. It is a very narrow range where a composite bow might give maybe 1 more damage if crossbows had +2 to hit. Otherwise the +2 crossbow is head and shoulders above the rest in all other situations. Really even the +1 is pushing it, but ok since it does cost a feat to get full attacks.

Btw, this logic applies to +1's to AB in general. The best martial feat when sticking to core is weapon focus hands down. It's only when splatbooks let you auto-hit or get ridiculous damage with other feats that weapon focus becomes obsolete.
Hm, okay, I think I understand it now. I will think about changing it. Thanks for pointing it out :smallsmile:




ToB is surprisingly balanced to work in specific ways. There's intricacies to the system's Maneuvers slots and such that can only be appreciated by spending time attempting to homebrew off it. The 'level appropriate' timing is very specific, and easy to muck with.

For instance, most stances become available at levels where you'd normally get a new stance known, except most notably, Devoted Spirit's most powerful stance. I personally suspect that's intentional to make that stance 'cost' an additional feat due to how powerful it is, since Crusader 20 can't ever claim it without a feat.
I guess you are right, I will definatly think about it. If I rebalance the ToB classes as PrC this shouldn't be a problem anymore :smallsmile:

[magic9mushroom]

Meh, I disagree. Caster aren't good at everything, at least imho. They CAN be good at lot of things, but only if they sacrifice other capabilities and they only can do it so many times a day.

NB:While I disagree theoretically, I'll acknowledge that this can be practically true in a lot of groups.

Have you heard of Uncanny Forethought?

[Divinech]

Have you heard of Uncanny Forethought?
Nope, never heard of it. My google-skills tell me it's from the Exemplars of Evil book, which we don't have.

[magic9mushroom]

Nope, never heard of it. My google-skills tell me it's from the Exemplars of Evil book, which we don't have.

Full-Round Action to cast any spell you know, and Standard Action to cast any spell you've Mastered.

[Greenish]

They are not lightly armored. They are medium and thus not inherently a mobile class. Like the barbarian, who doesn't have tumble. That simple.The point is that you can build them to be lightly armoured skirmishers if you want to, and make use of the tumble. Just because they go up to medium armour doesn't mean they always have to wear it (and if they do, they can't tumble anyway).

Warblades are made so that you can build a melee'er that fits your vision, instead of all being cast in the same mold. It's a different concept from the core melee'ers, yes, and better one, in my opinion.


I guess we simply have different opinions about what ToB-classes are about. When I read the fluff of the classes (at least the warblade one), it pretty clears told me: Warblades are good at hitting stuff and don't like talking. Or in other words: we strike first and ask question later, if at all. But maybe thats just meSo forcing them all to be clones because everyone should be a slave to the fluff.

[Divinech]

Full-Round Action to cast any spell you know, and Standard Action to cast any spell you've Mastered.
I don't see how this is relevant as we don't have the book (and thus this feat will not be permitted). But if we had the book, this feat probably wouldn't be allowed either...


The point is that you can build them to be lightly armoured skirmishers if you want to, and make use of the tumble. Just because they go up to medium armour doesn't mean they always have to wear it (and if they do, they can't tumble anyway).
Warblades are made so that you can build a melee'er that fits your vision, instead of all being cast in the same mold. It's a different concept from the core melee'ers, yes, and better one, in my opinion.
So forcing them all to be clones because everyone should be a slave to the fluff.
I disagree but respect your opinion. It seems we simply have a different view what the warblade and its ability is about. Unless you think otherwise, I think we can leave it at that (and save lots of time) :smallsmile:

[magic9mushroom]

I don't see how this is relevant as we don't have the book (and thus this feat will not be permitted). But if we had the book, this feat probably wouldn't be allowed either...

Exactly what I'm saying. There are various things that make Wizards more ungodly powerful, so having access to less of them will decrease their power, as will having players unskilled at optimisation (as Wizards need a lot of skill).

[Divinech]

Exactly what I'm saying. There are various things that make Wizards more ungodly powerful, so having access to less of them will decrease their power, as will having players unskilled at optimisation (as Wizards need a lot of skill).
Yep, there sure is.

It's one of our unwritten rules, that the DM has to acknowledge everything that isn't core. And alot of optimisations/cheesy stuff can be quickly stopped by a veto of the DM (as far as I read about them here. I was never truly interested in optimisation, because it can ruin alot of fun.). So unless our wizard starts to be a problem, I see no need for action :smallsmile:

[Mystic Muse]

A lot of your houserules are completely defeating the point of TOB. If you were using these houserules they'd completely put me off playing a martial adept. I'd just play a wizard instead because the only melee classes I can play effectively without being a one trick pony short of homebrew are gone.

also, Wizards don't need to go outside of core to be broken.

[Roderick_BR]

You changed Weapon Training into a feat, made recovery cost action points, reduced maneuvers/stances known/readied, and nerfed a hit dice or so. Not big deal if you think it was overpowered.

Don't know why so little skill poiints, though. If anything, non-casters should gain more to compensate for no-casting.

Hmm... why taking out the hardness-bypassing ability from maneuves? Stone Dragon is all about it. Unless you really want it to be only damage.

On to the rest:
Liked the buckler changes.
The crawling thing is interesting, but why not tumbling? I could see someone trying to roll away from an attacking foe.
The hitting an ally with a ranged attack is just an easening from the -4 rule, I think, not bad.
Like the stat cards idea. Been thinking about doing it myself.
The knowledge penalty is interesting, though more a flavorful thing. Add a -2 to -4 circunstace bonus when not in your familiar area, unless you spend the necessary time?

[Greenish]

I disagree but respect your opinion. It seems we simply have a different view what the warblade and its ability is about. Unless you think otherwise, I think we can leave it at that (and save lots of time) :smallsmile:Hmmph, okay.

The crawling thing is interesting, but why not tumbling? I could see someone trying to roll away from an attacking foe.I don't know if they use Complete Scoundrel, but there's a skill trick in there for Tumbling whilst prone, which sounds about right: it shouldn't be part of the standard skill, but it should be possible if you bothered to learn how to do it.

[Cyanic]

You did nothing to balance the most unbalanced classes in the game.

/thread.............

[Tiki Snakes]

From the sounds of things, you've missed the actual problem, to some degree.
It's generally widely held that, though decently powerful, the ToB classes are not genuinely overpowered. Perhaps a little potent for the first 4 levels or so, though.
Wizard, however, when optimised to the same degree's, becomes a real problem.

In your particular case, what you have is no problem from casters because the Wizard's player isn't optimising much, whereas the Warblade's player build to a higher standard in that respect. Hence, the Warblade was able to dominate encounters.

The problem isn't with the class involved, rather with the level of optimisation employed by the two players not matching.

What happens if the Warblade's player decides that his Warblade has been nerfed to the point of not really being any fun any-more, and rolls up one of the Tier 1 classes, like Wizard or Cleric?

The simpler way to solve the problem would have been to simply discuss the issue with the Warblade's player. Maybe get him to spread his power out a bit and take some more frivolous options, give the other players room to contribute?

That's how I see the situation anyway. That said, if the Warblade's player (and your other players) are happy with these rules, there is no problem, and there's no real reason to seek our advice. :smallsmile:

If people are having fun, it's all good.

[Yahzi]

On you buckler rules; how about just increasing light and heavy shield ac with 1, that way buckler is 1, light shield 2, and heavy 3. Now everything makes sense.
I did that, too. Shields are way more important in medieval combat than D&D allowed for.

As for crossbows, I allow a STR bow - except it takes extra rounds to load instead of extra STR. Players never use it - they can't wait 5 rounds for 1d10+4 attack. It's cool to have rows of mooks shoot them with it, though. :smallwink:

Also I divided weapons up into tech levels - Primitive, Wild, Civilized. Crossbows are simple - anyone can use them - but can only be made by advanced civilizations. On the other hand limiting your Orcs to Primitive tech (stone weapons) is a way to give your players an edge over them without creating a race of "XP points in easily punctured bags."

World of Prime at DriveThru RPG (free!) (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php?manufacturers_id=2849&filters=0_0_0_0)

[Kylarra]

From the sounds of things, you've missed the actual problem, to some degree.
It's generally widely held that, though decently powerful, the ToB classes are not genuinely overpowered. Perhaps a little potent for the first 4 levels or so, though.
Wizard, however, when optimised to the same degree's, becomes a real problem.

In your particular case, what you have is no problem from casters because the Wizard's player isn't optimising much, whereas the Warblade's player build to a higher standard in that respect. Hence, the Warblade was able to dominate encounters.

The problem isn't with the class involved, rather with the level of optimisation employed by the two players not matching.

What happens if the Warblade's player decides that his Warblade has been nerfed to the point of not really being any fun any-more, and rolls up one of the Tier 1 classes, like Wizard or Cleric?

The simpler way to solve the problem would have been to simply discuss the issue with the Warblade's player. Maybe get him to spread his power out a bit and take some more frivolous options, give the other players room to contribute?

That's how I see the situation anyway. That said, if the Warblade's player (and your other players) are happy with these rules, there is no problem, and there's no real reason to seek our advice. :smallsmile:

If people are having fun, it's all good.What I suspect is not necessarily that the Warblade's player is optimizing, though that may be the case, but simply the fact that the ToB classes are better "optimized" out of the box. With minimal effort, you can make a decent ToB character, whereas with other classes it takes a bit more work (read: optimization) in order to pull out their potential. Thus the need to "nerf" ToB, because they are good without trying, and force them to make "choices" and "suffer for their bonuses".

[dragonfan6490]

These all seem like good houserules to me, I like your buckler rule, it makes sense realistically. Now I've never tested this, seeing as how I'm more used to larger shields, but it seems like it would be much more difficult to block missile fire with a buckler than a light or heavy shield.

[Divinech]

In your particular case, what you have is no problem from casters because the Wizard's player isn't optimising much, whereas the Warblade's player build to a higher standard in that respect. Hence, the Warblade was able to dominate encounters.

The problem isn't with the class involved, rather with the level of optimisation employed by the two players not matching.
Like Kylarra says above, the problem is that ToB is very easily optimised. One just has to choose some powerful maneuvers and you are done. The wizard on the other hand has to choose feats, spells and prohibited schools very carefully to get absurdly powerful. Its of course possible to get a powerful wizards, but one needs a good understanding of the rules and about what can be done.
This Warblade was the first ToB class we had in play and was still dominating nearly every combat from lvl 1-5. So without any experience its still possible to get a powerful (and optimised) Warblade. And that is what I don't like about it.



What happens if the Warblade's player decides that his Warblade has been nerfed to the point of not really being any fun any-more, and rolls up one of the Tier 1 classes, like Wizard or Cleric?
The simpler way to solve the problem would have been to simply discuss the issue with the Warblade's player. Maybe get him to spread his power out a bit and take some more frivolous options, give the other players room to contribute?
Uhm, the player of the warblade totally agrees with me that ToB is broken (together with all other players of my group). That too was the reason that he created a homebrew ToB class and is "retraining" his warblade into the homebrewn class. I think he created the class, because we as a group didn't really know how to nerf the ToB classes, so that he won't be caught in some badly nerfed classes...
Oh, and he didn't like the fact that warblades&Co can use their maneuvers unlimited per day.


That's how I see the situation anyway. That said, if the Warblade's player (and your other players) are happy with these rules, there is no problem, and there's no real reason to seek our advice. :smallsmile:
If people are having fun, it's all good.
But I want advice! I had some good feedback here. Especially about Knowledge (local), the crossbow-thing and alot other things too...
And, honestly, I don't know what 2 out of 3 of my players think about my houserules, because they didn't answer my E-Mail yet... :smallannoyed:
But so far we are having fun :smallsmile:


I did that, too. Shields are way more important in medieval combat than D&D allowed for.

As for crossbows, I allow a STR bow - except it takes extra rounds to load instead of extra STR. Players never use it - they can't wait 5 rounds for 1d10+4 attack. It's cool to have rows of mooks shoot them with it, though. :smallwink:

Also I divided weapons up into tech levels - Primitive, Wild, Civilized. Crossbows are simple - anyone can use them - but can only be made by advanced civilizations. On the other hand limiting your Orcs to Primitive tech (stone weapons) is a way to give your players an edge over them without creating a race of "XP points in easily punctured bags."

World of Prime at DriveThru RPG (free!) (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php?manufacturers_id=2849&filters=0_0_0_0)
I think I'm content with giving crossbows a to hit bonus, but I will keep your suggestion in mind :smallsmile:
But I don't like tech levels of weapons. It does make sense, but doesn't fit my campaign world (which actually is Eberron). It can be a nice enhancement to the campaign, but isn't really necessary as I see it.



These all seem like good houserules to me, I like your buckler rule, it makes sense realistically. Now I've never tested this, seeing as how I'm more used to larger shields, but it seems like it would be much more difficult to block missile fire with a buckler than a light or heavy shield.
Yup, that's what we thought too. We need to check if the bookkeeping is too much of a hassle though. Having a different AC for melee and ranged can be a little confusing, but alot of other things cause that too... So my guess would be that it should be ok. But only playtesting can yield the final answer... :smallsmile:

[sonofzeal]

Never heard of Wildling Clasps. And since we don't have a druid in the group atm (which won't change any time soon), nerfing the druids is not my priority.
Wildling Clasps are the last item in the "Tool" section of Magic Item Compendium. They are fairly cheap, and can be added to any worn item to prevent it from merging when you wildshape. I believe it's unspecified if they also works on armor, but either way it makes it trivial for Druids to be fully blinged out in animal form, removing one of the few obstacles to utter pwnage.

And you spent a lot of time nerfing a number of classes, when I've only heard of one being in-use. Obviously, a well-designed set of houserules accounts for things that aren't currently in play, but might be sooner or later, and I'd consider it far more likely that you'd see a Druid in play than a Crusader or Swordsage. So if you spend time nerfing the latter (who are mere Tier 2's anyway), you should definitely spend time nerfing the former (who is Tier 1, and one of the more straightforward examples of the Tier at its finest).

[desmond1323]

I wanna give you serious kudos for a few things...for starters, posting these rules and defending them. All players and all DMs have different tastes/styles/dislikes/whatever. The serious backlash from ToB dislike is extreme evidence. So the fact that you're here with your own style and asking opinions on it is a grand thing, mate.

Secondly, yay for your stance on ToB. As a DM, I don't allow the book myself. The fact that you're just nerfing them (to whatever extent is beside the point) is especially notable. But once again, the whole thing is all about personal opinion.

Aside from the ToB stuff, most of my potential comments have already been said....nifty houserules, a few I may try myself. Good job.

[magic9mushroom]

And you spent a lot of time nerfing a number of classes, when I've only heard of one being in-use. Obviously, a well-designed set of houserules accounts for things that aren't currently in play, but might be sooner or later, and I'd consider it far more likely that you'd see a Druid in play than a Crusader or Swordsage. So if you spend time nerfing the latter (who are mere Tier 2's anyway), you should definitely spend time nerfing the former (who is Tier 1, and one of the more straightforward examples of the Tier at its finest).

Crusaders and Swordsages are generally Tier 3 according to your list, though 1d2 Crusader would make Crusaders Tier 2 if employed.

[Divinech]

Wildling Clasps are the last item in the "Tool" section of Magic Item Compendium. They are fairly cheap, and can be added to any worn item to prevent it from merging when you wildshape. I believe it's unspecified if they also works on armor, but either way it makes it trivial for Druids to be fully blinged out in animal form, removing one of the few obstacles to utter pwnage.
Oh... Ooohhh... Good god! Thanks for pointing it out. I always thought wildshape was fairly balanced, since you DO lose all benefits of items. I will think about incorporating it into my houserules.


And you spent a lot of time nerfing a number of classes, when I've only heard of one being in-use. Obviously, a well-designed set of houserules accounts for things that aren't currently in play, but might be sooner or later, and I'd consider it far more likely that you'd see a Druid in play than a Crusader or Swordsage. So if you spend time nerfing the latter (who are mere Tier 2's anyway), you should definitely spend time nerfing the former (who is Tier 1, and one of the more straightforward examples of the Tier at its finest).
You have a good point of course. I should balance all classes, even those that aren't in play (and those that might pose a risk like wizards). But don't forget the most important thing: I am a lazy bastard. So unless things turn out to be ugly, I won't spend time on it. There is just no need. Time is money and I don't have either :smallwink:


I wanna give you serious kudos for a few things...for starters, posting these rules and defending them. All players and all DMs have different tastes/styles/dislikes/whatever. The serious backlash from ToB dislike is extreme evidence. So the fact that you're here with your own style and asking opinions on it is a grand thing, mate.

Secondly, yay for your stance on ToB. As a DM, I don't allow the book myself. The fact that you're just nerfing them (to whatever extent is beside the point) is especially notable. But once again, the whole thing is all about personal opinion.

Aside from the ToB stuff, most of my potential comments have already been said....nifty houserules, a few I may try myself. Good job.
Thanks! :smallsmile:
Once I adjusted my houserules with all the nice suggestions here, I will post them again. Probably in a week or two...


---

To all future comments regarding ToB:
I will probably change my ToB-class rules and make these classes into PrC which can be taken at level 3-5. So its unnecessary to criticize the current rulings :smallsmile:
(The reduction of class abilities, skill points and hit dice will of course still be active. Only the reduction of maneuvers/stances will be revoked)
(Of course, you still can criticize the current rulings, but that may turn out to be a waste of time...)

[magic9mushroom]

To all future comments regarding ToB:
I will probably change my ToB-class rules and make these classes into PrC which can be taken at level 3-5. So its unnecessary to criticize the current rulings :smallsmile:
(The reduction of class abilities, skill points and hit dice will of course still be active. Only the reduction of maneuvers/stances will be revoked)
(Of course, you still can criticize the current rulings, but that may turn out to be a waste of time...)

*criticises*

[PhoenixRivers]

Oh... Ooohhh... Good god! Thanks for pointing it out. I always thought wildshape was fairly balanced, since you DO lose all benefits of items. I will think about incorporating it into my houserules.


You have a good point of course. I should balance all classes, even those that aren't in play (and those that might pose a risk like wizards). But don't forget the most important thing: I am a lazy bastard. So unless things turn out to be ugly, I won't spend time on it. There is just no need. Time is money and I don't have either :smallwink:


Thanks! :smallsmile:
Once I adjusted my houserules with all the nice suggestions here, I will post them again. Probably in a week or two...


---

To all future comments regarding ToB:
I will probably change my ToB-class rules and make these classes into PrC which can be taken at level 3-5. So its unnecessary to criticize the current rulings :smallsmile:
(The reduction of class abilities, skill points and hit dice will of course still be active. Only the reduction of maneuvers/stances will be revoked)
(Of course, you still can criticize the current rulings, but that may turn out to be a waste of time...)

My main issue is that people who don't like the THEME of ToB ban the book. This is well and good.

People who don't like the POWER LEVEL of ToB nerf it.

When you tinker with power level, you commit some... unusual practices.

Let's say we have a drag race.

In this race, we have 3 souped up dragsters (Wizcar, Druicar, Clericar)
3 Formula 1 race cars. (Crusadacar, Swordsacar, Warblacar)
Then we have 3 stock cars (Ficar, Palacar, Barbacar).

Your rulings are essentially requiring Formula 1 cars to have limiter chips, to lower them to stock cars.

It doesn't have a meaningful impact on actually affecting power levels in a positive way.

This is why we have confusion. Not over any love/hate of ToB, but of your perceptions of its power level.

If you can trust players to not abuse wizard/sorceror/etc, why can't you trust them to not abuse lower power classes?

[Harperfan7]

I don't care for your ToB rules, but everything else is solid and I plan on using many of them.

[Divinech]

My main issue is that people who don't like the THEME of ToB ban the book. This is well and good.

People who don't like the POWER LEVEL of ToB nerf it.

When you tinker with power level, you commit some... unusual practices.

Let's say we have a drag race.

In this race, we have 3 souped up dragsters (Wizcar, Druicar, Clericar)
3 Formula 1 race cars. (Crusadacar, Swordsacar, Warblacar)
Then we have 3 stock cars (Ficar, Palacar, Barbacar).

Your rulings are essentially requiring Formula 1 cars to have limiter chips, to lower them to stock cars.

It doesn't have a meaningful impact on actually affecting power levels in a positive way.

This is why we have confusion. Not over any love/hate of ToB, but of your perceptions of its power level.
Well, as I said, I don't want to ban the book since it has already been bought. And maneuvers are a great idea, but the rules (and the powerlevel) are not of my taste. So the only option I have is to adjust them...
Also, I totally don't get your analogy with drag races... :smallconfused:


If you can trust players to not abuse wizard/sorceror/etc, why can't you trust them to not abuse lower power classes?
Good point. Imho a ToB-character cannot be created without being overly powerful. They are inherently powerful and it really isn't easy to limit oneself.

[Tinydwarfman]

Oh... Ooohhh... Good god! Thanks for pointing it out. I always thought wildshape was fairly balanced, since you DO lose all benefits of items. I will think about incorporating it into my houserules.


Hahaha, wildshape, balanced, you crack me up...

seriously though, you've obviously never seen a druid wildshape into a fleshraker, cave ankylosaurus, a dire/desmondu bat, or even a polar bear.

Wildshape is hours per level flight/pounce/big AC, strength, dex buff/awesome natural weapons/grapple booster.

[MlleRouge]

I like the change to Natural Spell. I've never had personal problems with it, but I know that many consider it overpowered, and not without good reason....and I often see it banned outright. This seems like a fair way to compromise :D

[magic9mushroom]

Good point. Imho a ToB-character cannot be created without being overly powerful. They are inherently powerful and it really isn't easy to limit oneself.

Neither can a Wizard or Cleric, though a Sorcerer can be.

[sonofzeal]

Oh... Ooohhh... Good god! Thanks for pointing it out. I always thought wildshape was fairly balanced, since you DO lose all benefits of items. I will think about incorporating it into my houserules.
Hehe, yeah, there's a reason I brought that item up specifically. Even worse, many claim you can just take off all your bling, Wildshape, and then put much of it back on to get almost the same effect for free. Only works for certain items though.


Neither can a Wizard or Cleric, though a Sorcerer can be.
Evocation specialist. Divination focused specialist. Either way, ban Trans and Conj. Voila.

Cleric's a bit harder to screw up, but if you start off with terrible Str then it's an uphill battle to get yourself Czillaing, and many just aren't built for it anyway. Really, to pull it off well you need to be able to Quicken or Persist some good buffs, and not every Cleric can do either of those.

Remember, CharOp common wisdom is based around everyone actually knowing all that's out there and putting at least some effort into making use of that. A newb who's only vaguely familiar with even just the PHB isn't going to be making a Czilla. Or a Dzilla, really; you need items in Wildshape to really become overpowered. SNA's still amazing though.

[faceroll]

Neither can a Wizard or Cleric, though a Sorcerer can be.

Wut.
It's very easy to pick bad spells. It's quite easy to make suboptimal uses of your dailies.
It's quite hard to pick bad maneuvers and stances. You never run out, so you can swing all day at whatever you want.

[Kylarra]

The reason it's entirely possible for tier 1 classes to be not a problem while ToB classes are a problem is relatively simple. It requires more optimization to pull out the potential power of a tier 1 class and not everyone has the opfu that jaronK assumes for the classification of his tiers.

I forget who did it, Doc Roc maybe, that was showing off a range from unop-ed class to fully op-ed as far as power levels, but, using completely arbitrary terms from 1-10, I'll make bad analogies since I can't find it.

Sorc/Wizard easily spans the whole gauntlet. With only D4 HD and poor BAB and one good save, your abilities are entirely dependent on what spells you pick, and when you run out, you're done. I will grant that conventional charopfu does have ways to avoid this, and using proper BC can ration out their spells to survive the expected encounters/day but generic Newbie A will probably not know those or not necessarily apply what is taken as conventional wisdom by boards like this.

I'll slot Archivist in slightly above Sorc/Wiz in terms of minimums, only because it has D6 hd and 2 good saves. More than anything else though, this one is dependent on DM.

I'm really not sure where to put artificer, but it's probably over there with archivist in really shiny, but DM dependent.

Cleric will run from probably about 3-10. You've got a relatively decent base, D8 HD and average BAB with two good saves. You're still somewhat dependent on your spells, but you can mix it up if you want while wearing armor.

Druid is probably the "best" of the tier 1s played by a generic newbie. You have an excellent base chassis, D8 HD, average BAB, 2 good saves, 4 base skillpoints and an animal companion. You may not take advantage of every aspect, but being the equivalent of 3 characters means that you'll probably be decent no matter what. Closest in base (out of the box) power to a ToB class. So let's say 4-10. It still requires effort to pull out max power, but with SNA, buffs and pretty much any animal companion that a generic player would be attracted to, you're still fairly formidable, at least compared to fighter/blah.

Fighter would probably run from 3 to maybe 6. He's not great out of the box. D10 HD and full BAB are nice, but 2+int skills aren't so hot. Optimized well he can do stuff, but not necessarily as well as those guys up there.

ToB classes, on the other hand, start out around a 5 or so and run to 8. They all have decent HD, decent skills, full or average BAB. They also have their shiny maneuvers. Unlike spells, they can use these maneuvers pretty much all day and even if they take the ones that are just damage++, they're still half decent because they won't run out. They cap at a bit lower than tier 1s for sure, but they "start out" at a higher point.

I realize I'm probably rambling and most likely have miscalculated numbers (they are arbitrary values used to illustrate a point, please don't ask for any real scale), but I hope the gist of the reason why ToB can easily be seen as overpowered by a group is a bit clearer.

[PhoenixRivers]

Well, as I said, I don't want to ban the book since it has already been bought. And maneuvers are a great idea, but the rules (and the powerlevel) are not of my taste. So the only option I have is to adjust them...
Also, I totally don't get your analogy with drag races... :smallconfused:
Simple.

Wizards/Clerics/Druids are the Dragsters. They're 0-60 in 2 seconds flat, blazing fast acceleration.

ToB classes are the Formula 1 cars. Very fast, but not nearly as much so as the first.

Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin are the stock cars. They're built to race, but they're essentially souped up versions of standard cars. They can't compete with either of the other two.


Good point. Imho a ToB-character cannot be created without being overly powerful. They are inherently powerful and it really isn't easy to limit oneself.
It's quite easy, through maneuver selection, stat placement, etc.

You want hard to make weak? Druid. Even if you mandate the shapeshift variant (a smart move) over wildshape (source: SRD, variant class features)... Even if you eliminate the Animal Companion via alternate class feature (such as Rage/some barb features)... It's still a fullcasting class with scads of useful abilities, as well as spells, and more raw summoning power than just about anything else.

At level 3, being able to teleport short distances once or twice a fight instead of attacking isn't too powerful. Getting a little flaming damage isn't too powerful. They're less flexible than any caster ability, and far more limited. For the most part, they're also restricted to melee.

IMO, most people who have issues with the perceived power level of the book haven't given it the necessary level of attention and study. It's far less powerful than the spell system, it just takes getting used to.

Most maneuvers are standard actions. They can't be blended into a full attack, which means that you give up full attacks to use them. Consider that tradeoff when you look at the abilities.

[Divinech]

Hello everyone again!

As can be read in the title I finished to modify my new houserules. I already sent them to my fellow gamers, but I am also interested what you guys and gals think!

Here is the new Link:
http://s5.directupload.net/file/d/2111/m2l272qv_pdf.htm

The most important changes (which by the are all marked red for your convenience) are:
- ToB classes are now PrC which can be taken at 3rd level
- Eschew Materials is free for Sorcerers
- Ability modifiers for races adjusted
- And some balancing of existing rules (namely the crossbow thing and Knowledge (local))

So, what does everyone think about them? I think they are next to perfect now and only playtesting can tell what might need to be changed. The main thing thats bugging me, is that the rules are now 3 pages long :smallannoyed: