[3.P] Why the dislike for Tome of Battle?

[TooManyBadgers]

I'm not too familiar with the works of Jack Vance, but in potterverse most of the wizards use only handful of handy spells which they can pretty much spam. Teleportation (and not everyone learns that) aside, binder would describe a potterian wizard (if a rather eccentric one) pretty well.It could work, but my point is that the shifting abilities/day and the 30-second cool-downs make it a very clumsy model.

And if you use Harry Potter style magic, "wizard" doesn't actually fit in. (What spellbook, I only need my wand and can cast any spell I've learned!) A spontaneous cleric might be closest thing, mechanically. Refluff "holy symbol" to "wand", and bam!
Yeah. I'm thinking Truenamer's actually probably the best fit, if you turn the wands into twinked-out Item Familiars.

[Prime32]

Okay, I'm gonna be honest here. I did a look up on some of the powers Merlin was supposed to have. Admittedly my source may be off, but assuming my source was correct, no D&D class would work out of the box. Specifically, it said he could shapechange, see the future, make elemental attacks, create magical barriers, and heal. I suppose he could be a Mystic Theurge, but I digress. What are the easiest classes to use though? Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, or Cleric. All you would have to do is change the spell list very slightly. None of the other classes work easily, although Warlock and Adept could work with greater modifications. Finally, I consider mechanics and flavor to be inseparable.Sounds like a druid to me. Merlin was partly based on a Welsh nature god anyway.


Uh, I don't see how Crusader can represent Barbarian.Crusaders are tough as nails, and focus all their anger into hurting their opponent.


I was under the impression Psions couldn't shapeshift. In fact, I'm still under that impression. If I'm wrong, then yes Psion would work. Otherwise all you need to do is add a power or three to the Psion list.
Here's two of the powers which let them do that.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metamorphosis.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/formofDoom.htm

[Demons_eye]

Not as weird as you'd think. S'probably why I'm confused all the time at people upset by fluff. I kinda assume that's what everyone does naturally. Because y'know, it makes sense.

Its hard to do if you are not the DM IMHO. What if you full attack give a wonderful blow by blow break down and you killed him with the first attack, or missed him three times, or even got interrupted by a readied action. Its not impossible but its hard.

Maybe if you where told before you describe your hits that you hit him with every attack but that seems to be pointless to describe it after you know you've hit him. Feels like your slowing down the game.

[true_shinken]

Not as weird as you'd think. S'probably why I'm confused all the time at people upset by fluff. I kinda assume that's what everyone does naturally. Because y'know, it makes sense.


Same here.

I could hug you guys.
...in a totally manly way.



Its hard to do if you are not the DM IMHO. What if you full attack give a wonderful blow by blow break down and you killed him with the first attack, or missed him three times, or even got interrupted by a readied action. Its not impossible but its hard.

Maybe if you where told before you describe your hits that you hit him with every attack but that seems to be pointless to describe it after you know you've hit him. Feels like your slowing down the game.
Well... that... is not what he was talking about.

[Terazul]

Its hard to do if you are not the DM IMHO.

You obviously don't play enough Exalted.

[Demons_eye]

I love ToB, but lets be fair: his point was (probably) that while a Full Attack does not have an inherent flavor, FSCIES has, but while you might just go "I use FSCIES" - "He dies.", which is not that much flavorful and interesting, a good description can make the rather bland Full Attack interesting.




Well... that... is not what he was talking about.

Sorry I was thorwn when he said this. Must have miss read.


You obviously don't play enough Exalted.

I don;t but I really want too....

[Drolyt]

Okay, I screwed up with some of my examples. I'm going to drop my argument that core is more versatile than ToB, not because I don't still think it is, but because it doesn't matter. Hell, you could use both and expand your options beyond what either could do alone. The point I am trying to make is that fluff and mechanics are tightly interwoven. Wizards have some fluff built into them because they use Vancian mechanics, while Psions have some fluff built into them because they use a point system. I would argue that both of those however are less fluff restrictive than any of the melee classes. It is fairly easy, especially with some homebrew spells/powers, to take either a Wizard or a Psion and represent billions of different characters. That's not true with a Paladin. It is hard to be anything but a holy warrior with the Paladin. Sure you can homebrew some stuff, maybe remove the alignment restrictions and the code of conduct, but it is invariably more limiting than a Psion, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard, etc. The same is true of the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage. The Fighter is in my opinion the closest thing to a truly general melee class, but the Fighter sucks.

Why does this matter? Some people don't like ToB fluff and flavor. People who respond that flavor can be changed are committing the Oberoni Fallacy. While you may disagree with my opinion that Core is more flavor independent, you can't disagree that it has a different flavor from core and not everyone likes that.

Finally, I already said I don't mind ToB, so I'm not sure why some people seem defensive about it. I like ToB, I just prefer to restrict options in my campaigns. If a player really wants to use ToB I will let him, but preferably if I were using ToB I would build my setting for it.

[Greenish]

[Edit]: Huh, that was long. Spoilered.
Okay, I'm gonna be honest here. I did a look up on some of the powers Merlin was supposed to have. Admittedly my source may be off, but assuming my source was correct, no D&D class would work out of the box. Specifically, it said he could shapechange, see the future, make elemental attacks, create magical barriers, and heal.That would be psion. Dragonfire Adept makes a surprisingly good fit, too.

What are the easiest classes to use though? Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, or Cleric.Yes, well, because they can do just about anything, they'd come up in any list of abilities.

Finally, I consider mechanics and flavor to be inseparable.Well, there are different schools of thought on that. Shall we leave that aside?


Monk is a crappy class. Sure Warblade makes some archetypes more effective, but Fighter has far more possible archetypes.No, he doesn't. Warblade can do anything a fighter can, and usually better. (Yes, warblade archers can be very devastating.)

Aside from the alignment freedom, I see Crusader and Paladin as about equal in what archetypes they represent. They both have restrictive mechanics compared to either Fighter or Warblade that determine their role.I'm not sure I follow. How are crusader's mechanics more restrictive than a fighters? They both get the same weapons, the same armour, and crusader can pick up almost any of the same feats a fighter could, while having maneuvers to represent just about anything.

I'll admit to this mistake, I should have chosen a character whose abilities are more defined as opposed to a character that is different every time they are displayed.That's what makes the mythological figures hard to stat out, yeah. :smallcool:


Uh, I don't see how Crusader can represent Barbarian. Fighter is still more general.By… being a barbarian? He's from the tribes, hits things with a stone-pointed spear (hard!),wears a leather armour, is fierce and despises the "soft cultured" people.

The fact that Warblade is less restrictive in combat doesn't change the fact that Fighter is less restrictive in the type of character you want to play. You guys are really missing my point here.Because you're just stating that, you're not actually explaining why. You should also remember that while you see fluff and mechanics inexorably linked, not everyone shares that view. Unless you mean that all warblades have to be self-centered gloryhounds who train at swordtemples, I don't see how warblade is any more limited than a fighter (and if that's what you mean, we're not missing the point but disagreeing with it).

I suppose they are about equal.Except maybe the paladin's in-built code of conduct and having to be LG.

Yeah, but Rangers still have more choice in the matter.Well, a straight warblade is a better archer than an archery ranger, while we needn't even compare TWF warblade with TWF ranger.

Do we have to be condescending? I'll admit I might not be making my point very well, but I am at least civil about it.No, I don't. Sorry about that, I just get frustrated trying to understand. (Not your fault.) :smallredface:

I was under the impression Psions couldn't shapeshift. In fact, I'm still under that impression. If I'm wrong, then yes Psion would work. Otherwise all you need to do is add a power or three to the Psion list.Metamorphosis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metamorphosis.htm). If you're not an egoist, well, psions get handy-dandy free feats to burn on stuff like Expanded Knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#expandedKnowledge).

I will argue the core classes are more general. You seem to disagree. Good for you.No, you will state that they are more general. For arguing, you have to use actual arguments. (In the line of "I feel they're more general because of X".)

[Aotrs Commander]

Fluff and mechanics are not unrelated.

If I define my setting's magic in the style of Jack Vance, a Psion is out of place, regardless of what I call its manifesting.

If I define my setting's magic in the style of Harry Potter, a Binder will be out of place, regardless of what I call its vestiges.

I could embrace multiple systems and their fluff implications, abandoning the internal coherence of a setting to just say "Look, in my world, a bunch of crazy **** just happens, okay?" but I think that cheapens the environment.

I can think of several worlds where multiple supernatural systems work side-by-side. Mercedes Lackey's books are probably the best example I can think of off the top of my head; they often has more than one "magic type"; her Valdamar series has both magic and mind-magic (i.e psionics), for starters.

Some of Tamora Pierce's do too, though not quite as obviously; the titular characters in the Circle series have unusual magical talents. (Indeed the latter case could be argued to be more split like prepared verses spontaneous). Skullduggery Plesent also has Adepts and Elementals, which is perhaps a similar sort of split, however. Right in the corner, there is the implication in Naruto (through the movies) that chakra is not the only form of supernatural power, though it appears to be by far the most common.

I actually prefer worlds where there is more than one type of supernatural power, myself, as I think it gives the world rather more depth. It really all depends on what you want out of your world.

[Drolyt]

[Edit]: Huh, that was long. Spoilered.That would be psion. Dragonfire Adept makes a surprisingly good fit, too.
Yes, well, because they can do just about anything, they'd come up in any list of abilities.
Well, there are different schools of thought on that. Shall we leave that aside?
No, he doesn't. Warblade can do anything a fighter can, and usually better. (Yes, warblade archers can be very devastating.)
I'm not sure I follow. How are crusader's mechanics more restrictive than a fighters? They both get the same weapons, the same armour, and crusader can pick up almost any of the same feats a fighter could, while having maneuvers to represent just about anything.
That's what makes the mythological figures hard to stat out, yeah. :smallcool:
By… being a barbarian? He's from the tribes, hits things with a stone-pointed spear (hard!),wears a leather armour, is fierce and despises the "soft cultured" people.
Because you're just stating that, you're not actually explaining why. You should also remember that while you see fluff and mechanics inexorably linked, not everyone shares that view. Unless you mean that all warblades have to be self-centered gloryhounds who train at swordtemples, I don't see how warblade is any more limited than a fighter (and if that's what you mean, we're not missing the point but disagreeing with it).
Except maybe the paladin's in-built code of conduct and having to be LG.
Well, a straight warblade is a better archer than an archery ranger, while we needn't even compare TWF warblade with TWF ranger.
No, I don't. Sorry about that, I just get frustrated trying to understand. (Not your fault.) :smallredface:
Metamorphosis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metamorphosis.htm). If you're not an egoist, well, psions get handy-dandy free feats to burn on stuff like Expanded Knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#expandedKnowledge).
No, you will state that they are more general. For arguing, you have to use actual arguments. (In the line of "I feel they're more general because of X".)
I'd try to make a better argument rather than just state what I think, but I'm obviously doing a poor job as it is so I'm just going to bow out. I still think it is fallacious to respond to someone saying they don't like ToB flavor that they can simply change it, which is what I meant to argue in the first place but I screwed up.

[balistafreak]

Okay, I took a logic class over the summer, and something about these threads bothers me. To quote:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

A fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. If you're calling something fallacious, it means that you believe someone's reasoning is incorrect.

It is not fallacious to arrive at an incorrect conclusion if your base information is false - one key part of Boolean logic is that an if-then statement that begins with a false premise is always true.

It is extremely irksome to see the word "fallacy" used as a synonym for "what I don't like" or "something I don't agree with". I've seen it a hojillion times on the boards - for the love of a young student's sanity, stop. :smalltongue:

And for your information: the Oberoni Fallacy deals with Rule 0. It is fallacious to argue that something is X because "rules can be changed/altered", and a particular DM will rule in some way. For example, "a Commoner is good because a DM will give him magical artifacts to keep up", or "a Wizard is terrible because a DM will put in a limiting mechanic". These are two huge and obvious examples, but some are more subtle.

I'm not seeing what relation this has to flavor. At all. :smallconfused:

As long as one reflavors carefully and stays within the same "genre" (which isn't hard at all), there should never, ever be a rules question. If you've created a rules question with your reflavoring, the failure lies with you personal for not forseeing the problem, not the concept of flavor/mechanics separation in general. To whit, the action of reflavoring should be not so much changing what already exists, but maneuvering within the limits set by the rules.

[Drolyt]

The Oberoni Fallacy is arguing that something isn't bad because you can change it. It is normally applied to rules, but I see no difference in applying it to flavor. For example, if I were to say I don't like Vancian casting and someone said it doesn't matter because I could just house rule it so Wizards cast like Psions, that would be committing the Oberoni Fallacy. If I were to say I don't like the flavor of the Binder class, and someone were to say it doesn't matter because I could just reflavor it, that is still committing the Oberoni fallacy. I see no difference between the two.

Edit: Also, don't say "I took a logic class over the summer" or anything similar. It doesn't make you sound more intelligent or more authoritative, it makes you sound stuck up and holier than thou. I've had a logic class before too, as well as math and programming classes that make strong use of logic, so you don't need to teach me about it thank you very much.

[Starbuck_II]

The Oberoni Fallacy is arguing that something isn't bad because you can change it. It is normally applied to rules, but I see no difference in applying it to flavor. For example, if I were to say I don't like Vancian casting and someone said it doesn't matter because I could just house rule it so Wizards cast like Psions, that would be committing the Oberoni Fallacy. If I were to say I don't like the flavor of the Binder class, and someone were to say it doesn't matter because I could just reflavor it, that is still committing the Oberoni fallacy. I see no difference between the two.


I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. You should never paraphrase a text in a way that confuses yourself. Call that the Starbuck Axiom if you like.
Try this: This is the fallacy part=
There is no problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue with (whatever rule) because you can always Rule 0 the problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue.’

Flavor text is not listed at all. It deals with Mechanical issues (like houseruling). Usually as response to, "it is broken because it can be houseruled" it needed houseruling because it was broken.
It is affirming there was a problem.

It was never a discussion on flavor: because flavior is mutable.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not seeing what relation this has to flavor. At all. :smallconfused:
That's easy. If rule X is perceived as bad, then the fact that the DM can change it doesn't make it any less bad as written. Likewise, if fluff Y is perceived as bad, then the fact that a player can change it doesn't make it any less bad as written. The term "oberoni fallacy" refers to the former, but the principle behind the latter is clearly related.

The notion that "fluff is mutable" tends to be a cop-out anyway, because in my experience the majority of players and DMs simply don't do that. Yes, you can play a magician character who is technically a fighter, or vice versa, by refluffing his sword strokes to be spells, or his spells to be sword attacks; but most people really don't play like that.

Overall, if rulebook Z requires substantial changes before it lets you do what you want, then that begs the question why you're using that book in the first place.

[balistafreak]

The Oberoni Fallacy is arguing that something isn't bad because you can change it. It is normally applied to rules, but I see no difference in applying it to flavor.

The Oberoni Fallacy was forged (discovered?) in the context of rules, as a few minutes with Google will back up. While I cede that a term forged only on the internet is a bit nebulous, to remove it from the context in which it was formed is to destroy its veracity and eliminate the point of quoting it as evidence.

Whether or not it is still a valid statement is up for debate, but that is what we are doing right now. Why is the statement, which was once accepted as "true", now in doubt? Since the original premise of the Fallacy (rules) has been dropped for a new premise (flavor), the veracity of the Fallacy is now unclear.

The Fallacy's point (not the fallacy itself) is thus:


Rules: cannot be changed without repercussion.


We both accept this as true, making it a valid basis to start with. By transplanting the point of the Oberoni Fallacy into flavor, however, it now reads:


Flavor: cannot be changed without repercussion.


By changing the premise, the entire context of the statement is different. We now have to examine the veracity of an entirely new statement.

However, since there's no empirical way to do so, "examine" simply means "argue and debate with each other until one of us agrees with the other/an overwhelming majority of bystanders take up one side".

tl;dr: Using the Oberoni Fallacy as an argument in this situation would require that the statement already be true in this situation, which is the very thing we are arguing. To reference it to support the argument is circular logic and... dare I say it... fallacious. :smalltongue:


Edit: Also, don't say "I took a logic class over the summer" or anything similar. It doesn't make you sound more intelligent or more authoritative, it makes you sound stuck up and holier than thou.

I'm sorry if you interpret it that way, but when I read an argument I want the speaker to establish some semblance of ethos instead of being "poster #3033". Sure, I might be lying about it (86% of all statistics and qualifications are made up on the spot) and to be completely honest a single logic class isn't the most , but at least it's something.

To whit, a pompous declaration of background might be annoying, but it's far better than being anonymous. Just look at politicians... okay, okay, bad example.


I've had a logic class before too, as well as math and programming classes that make strong use of logic, so you don't need to teach me about it thank you very much.

Rebut my above reasoning in a logical method I accept to convince me of your point, then, because we are clearly at differing standpoints as to what is and isn't logical. Point out any fallacies I've made, introduce new background information, whatever it takes, so long as it works. Alternatively, rebut it using reasoning that the majority of people accept to make your point to the world. Preferably, do both. :smallwink:


That's easy. If rule X is perceived as bad, then the fact that the DM can change it doesn't make it any less bad as written. Likewise, if fluff Y is perceived as bad, then the fact that a player can change it doesn't make it any less bad as written.

True; however, not applicable in this context. The fallacy (not the point of the fallacy, this time :smalltongue:) argues that "rule X isn't bad because a DM changes it". However, when one changes the fluff, the original fluff is left on the side of the road; it is not reinterpreted or altered, but downright replaced.

To make the situation fit the case of the Oberoni Fallacy, I'd have to say something like this:

"Warblade fluff as glory-hounds isn't bad."

Why not?

"Because in my game, Warblades are chivalrous knights."

But now they aren't gloryhounds...

The argument I feel most of us are making is "scrap the fluff completely" - we accept that it IS bad, and throw it out the window, the rules equivalent of making a new houserule outright, as opposed to interpretting an already printed rule in a new way.

The term "oberoni fallacy" refers to the former, but the principle behind the latter is clearly related.


The notion that "fluff is mutable" tends to be a cop-out anyway, because in my experience the majority of players and DMs simply don't do that. Yes, you can play a magician character who is technically a fighter, or vice versa, by refluffing his sword strokes to be spells, or his spells to be sword attacks; but most people really don't play like that.

This is more of a parallel than a rebuttal, but see my previous opinions on "mutable fluff". Responsible refluffing means making sure that every single mechanic can be represented with your new refluffing. Magicians who are technically fighters tend to... not work, as does anything that crosses a genre/paradigm completely.


Overall, if rulebook Z requires substantial changes before it lets you do what you want, then that begs the question why you're using that book in the first place.

Because some of us enjoy playing within printed mechanical limits as an intellectual, logical challenge for gameplay reasons, the same reason why lots of people play clunky or difficult video games. It might be silly, but then again so are we. :smallbiggrin:

Reflavoring is something we do to make the bitter pill we enjoy so much more palatable - sugarcoating it, so to speak.

[true_shinken]

The notion that "fluff is mutable" tends to be a cop-out anyway, because in my experience the majority of players and DMs simply don't do that. Yes, you can play a magician character who is technically a fighter, or vice versa, by refluffing his sword strokes to be spells, or his spells to be sword attacks; but most people really don't play like that.

Kurald, you are awesome. You are my hero.

[Thiyr]

The notion that "fluff is mutable" tends to be a cop-out anyway, because in my experience the majority of players and DMs simply don't do that. Yes, you can play a magician character who is technically a fighter, or vice versa, by refluffing his sword strokes to be spells, or his spells to be sword attacks; but most people really don't play like that.

To that extreme, I've never seen it used personally, though I'd guess that'd be becuase that very much is an extreme, and would take a lot of work to have occur without some kind of issue with the mechanics creeping in (working under the assumption of core arcane and martial classes). However, I have very often seen fluff shifted, changed, edited, and replaced in order to better fit a concept.

I've played druids who would never live up to the "neutral protector of nature" archetype, instead considering themselves nature based arcanists who (at least in this case) specialized in animal-based transformative magic because of the power that represented. I've been approved to play, in an upcoming game, a tibbit beguiler going into shadowcraft mage. not only is the gnome fluff entirely gone, replaced with a cult to the shadow, but that same fluff isn't separate from the beguiler levels. The entire thing is one organization. Similarly, for another game I'm going to propose to the DM that I wish to play a non-good dragonborn. In order to get that to work out, I thought of it as a curse, something the character is very much angry about and wants to be rid of, regardless of the benefits. Fluff then, to me, seems extremely mutable, as each of these characters worked entirely within printed rules. The first two are smaller, the last one is a bit larger, but all of these are reasonable concepts in the sense that they cause no conflict with what the character is capable of doing. They may not fit with a gameworld and be rejected due to that, but the refluffing works.

Though on a different note, I'd accept being told a concept doesn't work due to the setting, I'd play the game, but I'd be somewhat cautious about the DM at that point. It's not inherently bad, but odds are against the DM having absolutely everything written about their world, so it's not hard to have a reclusive organization which more obscure classes could have come from. To use the Harry Potter example, if wizards can hide from muggles, why couldn't binders be hiding from wizards?

[RickGriffin]

But wait, I play most all classes without considering or even reading the fluff. I think it's rather difficult to say that the fluff exists on the same level as the mechanics, because bad fluff can be ignored far more easily than bad mechanics. Because fluff never, EVER gets brought up in a rules argument ever, and you can't say that someone is not playing a class by RAW if they stick to the mechanics exactly but ignore the fluff.

Does nobody else read class description like this?

CLASS
Words words words. Words words words.
Adventurers: words words words.
Characteristics: words! words words words words.
Alignment: words words words. See below.
Religion: words words words.
Background: Words, words words, words words words word words.
Races: Words. Words words: words word words.
Other Classes: words words words words words words.
GAME RULE INFORMATION: Wake up and start paying attention.

Then, in general, class abilities are okay until you get into later books where they're structured like this:

Ability: Words words words words words words words words words words words words WHOOSH EXPLOSION words words words. You gain +4 to Intimidate during battle.

I mean, you can't force anyone to consider the CW Samurai fearsome just because it says so repeatedly in its fluff, can you?

[true_shinken]

But wait, I play most all classes without considering or even reading the fluff.

Fluff is not always written, but there is always fluff. And you can't always change it, because it might affect more than your own character. Refluffing must be done really carefully, on a case-by-case basis.
That's what Kurald means. Since there is already fluff in the books, most people go with that. Now, if you go to an actual gaming table and say 'hey, guys, fluff is mutable, so I'll be a wizard, but my spells are not actually spells, they are just sword tricks'... you can't expect everyone to agree with a smile on their faces.
Another example, if you are playing in FR, you can't just show up with a white dragonspawn 'because fluff is mutable' and complain later about how your DM shot your submission. The white dragonspawn thing is specially true because it is cheesy as hell and it is often encouraged on settings other than Dragonlance here in this forum.
Talk to your DM. Talk to your group, even. Unless someone says the fluff is not what is on the book, it's probably exactly the same. Then you present your refluff... and see if it flies, because it might just as well not fly.
Now and again I've seen people say 'DMs shouldn't mess with character fluff', but they should be in control of their world. It's part of the fun of being the DM, after all! Seeing the world flourish as you designed it - even if it is Faerun, it is your Faerun. And if you don't want 'wizards that are not actually wizards because fluff is mutable' on your game, you are damn right to tell the players that you don't want that level of refluffing, that you like the fluff as written and try to find some middle ground. Show him a Duskblade or something. But really, this 'anything goes, fluff is mutable' thinking, like Kurald says, won't fly in most games.

[DragoonWraith]

Yeah, I use and abuse fluff. It's not that I change every thing every time, but, for instance, I'm making a Dread Necromancer/Silver Flame Pyromancer - alignments don't work out, and hell, the Silver Flame is more anti-undead than just about anyone. But the idea came to me and I was just so... enamored with the idea, that I had to write a backstory explaining how it had happened. I'm rather pleased with the character, on the whole.

And while I've made glory-hound Warblades, there absolutely no reason why every Warblade has to be. Warblades are, primarily, weapons masters - they train with many weapons, they can pick up new ones quickly, and their abilities come far more from their skills than from whatever weapon they happen to be using. When I read the PHB section on the Fighter, this is what I thought the Fighter was supposed to be, but he wasn't. The Warblade is.


There are connections between fluff and mechanics, but in almost every case, they're close to non-existent. What about the Warblade's mechanics indicates glory-hound? I can't think of a single thing. What about the Wizard's mechanics indicates spellcasting? Quite a lot - but not so much so that you couldn't refluff it if you really wanted. The more you want to change, the more difficult it becomes, but it can still change.

Someone compared that to the Oberoni (?) fallacy, the one about the ability to change a rule doesn't mean the rule is bad. Sure - but how many people don't use Diplomacy because the Diplomacy rules are bad? You may not like Tome of Battle's fluff - but like everything else, you can change it. Fluff is special here because it is very easy to change the vast majority of the time. What does it take to refluff a Warblade into any martial melee type you can think of? Just ignore the text that calls him a glory-hound, and insert your own character's backstory instead.


Besides, if you're so unwilling to change things, wouldn't it mean that every time you make a Fighter, his backstory has to include him being pretty poor at fighting? Because after all, he's going to be. That's mechanics indicating fluff, but I doubt many people choose the Fighter because "this guy's not really supposed to be that good at fighting".

[RickGriffin]

But if you're saying the fluff like "A wizard must prepare from his spellbook by studying for x hours", that is a mechanic. "Prepare" "study" and "spellbook" imply certain fluff things, but if it is functionally the same, at least in the case of "prepare" and "study", then changing it on the fly is no big deal.

"Spellbook" is a whole different ballgame. It implies certain assumptions about the setting as well as how magic is used (that it is Vanician system). What you probably mean is that fluff has to match the setting and you can't change it willy-nilly so that it clashes with it. But that's always up to the setting and the DM.

If you change the fluff "spellbook" so that it is decidedly less spellbook-like, then you DO change the mechanics because the physical presence of a spellbook is integral to how that mechanic works (Because there are rules for how many pages a spell takes in a spellbook, etc) But for fluff that is not as integrally tied as the spellbook, you probably don't even need to consult with your DM.

And that includes almost all Tome of Battle maneuvers, which as a tactical gamer, I play completely generically, as though I were a warrior but with the ability to hit things in creative ways.

[true_shinken]

Besides, if you're so unwilling to change things, wouldn't it mean that every time you make a Fighter, his backstory has to include him being pretty poor at fighting? Because after all, he's going to be. That's mechanics indicating fluff, but I doubt many people choose the Fighter because "this guy's not really supposed to be that good at fighting".

Except not. Fighter is not as bad as you think outside your highly forumite state of mind. In a game of Monster Manual encounters and DMG NPCs, fighters are not that bad at their work. Not every game is highly optimized, not every game has ToB allowed. So your statement is faulty at best.

[Gnaeus]

Except not. Fighter is not as bad as you think outside your highly forumite state of mind. In a game of Monster Manual encounters and DMG NPCs, fighters are not that bad at their work. Not every game is highly optimized, not every game has ToB allowed. So your statement is faulty at best.

Actually it is more of the opposite. Dragoon or many other experienced posters could probably make a quite effective fighter (like jack B quick, or a good trip or charge build) that would be appropriate in most games.

A TWF or S&B fighter made by a non-optimizer (or worse, a fighter who spreads his feats among 2 or more fighting styles), on the other hand, is very likely weaker than a druid's pet at a similar level of optimization. Or a cleric or wizard who decide that one of a handful of core spells (polymorph, divine power, righteous might) sound like fun. Heck, or even a barbarian. You don't need ToB to demonstrate that fighters aren't very good at fighting. You need a lot of optimization to MAKE the fighter good at fighting.

[Terazul]

Man. My spellbook is a magic bonzai tree that I reflect on. It costs the same cost as a spellbook. Has the same amount of pages (leaves!) as a spellbook. Takes the same amount of time to reflect (study). No mechanical changes. Sure, if you wanted to eliminate it entirely, that's something else. But I don't get why the first thing we always do in the "fluff is mutable" discussion is go to (obviously more difficult to portray) extremes when those aren't even the examples presented sometimes. You can play an exceptionally devout Fighter and call yourself a cleric, a particularly zealous Cleric and call yourself a crusader, or an upstanding citizen of a Crusader who calls himself a paladin, and have nobody know the wiser*. No mechanical changes, just rolling with the character.

*Unless you're doing that goofy "all x class members always do y" nonsense that is just as silly as having your class name floating above your head.

[gomipile]

If I define my setting's magic in the style of Harry Potter, a Binder will be out of place, regardless of what I call its vestiges.


The binder might be a BBEG. Consider that most (if not all, I don't have my D&D books with me at the moment) of the vestiges are based and named directly on goetic demons from The Lesser Key of Solomon, a real book which presumably exists in the Harry Potter universe. It would be a natural plot development that the goetic demons are real, and someone had gained the ability to make pacts with them in exchange for personal power.

[DragoonWraith]

Actually it is more of the opposite. Dragoon or many other experienced posters could probably make a quite effective fighter (like jack B quick, or a good trip build) that would be appropriate in most games.

A TWF or S&B fighter made by a non-optimizer, on the other hand, is very likely weaker than a druid's pet at a similar level of optimization. Or a cleric or wizard who decide that one of a handful of core spells (polymorph, divine power, righteous might) sound like fun. Heck, or even a barbarian. You don't need ToB to demonstrate that fighters aren't very good at fighting. You need a lot of optimization to MAKE the fighter good at fighting.
This, really (though my experience with Fighters is minimal and I'd have to do some research to make an optimized build if it were necessary). The very first game I ever played, we had two Fighters, a Rogue, and a Druid (and I joined later with a Sorcerer who we later ret-conned to a Beguiler), and after two fights the Fighter and Rogue had both commented on how the Druid's wolf had dominated the two fights thus far.

And then the Druid leveled up and his Wolf became Large, while the Fighter got Combat Expertise (which he, for the record, never once used, as should be utterly unsurprising - he was hoping to get Improved Trip someday). Did the Rogue do much better with Uncanny Dodge? Seeing as we've been the ones to initiate combat and he has a high Init check, no, not really.

[RickGriffin]

Man. My spellbook is a magic bonzai tree that I reflect on. It costs the same cost as a spellbook. Has the same amount of pages (leaves!) as a spellbook. Takes the same amount of time to reflect (study). No mechanical changes.

This is one of the best alternate spellbooks ever.

But do you have to water it?! MECHANICS CHANGE

[FMArthur]

This is one of the best alternate spellbooks ever.

But do you have to water it?! MECHANICS CHANGE

To gain new spells, you water it. The water is bizarrely expensive, though.

[Starbuck_II]

Except not. Fighter is not as bad as you think outside your highly forumite state of mind. In a game of Monster Manual encounters and DMG NPCs, fighters are not that bad at their work. Not every game is highly optimized, not every game has ToB allowed. So your statement is faulty at best.

Ice Devil. NPC Fighter loses badly.

[Elfin]

On another note, Gandalf was a single-class paladin. Yes, or a solar.

His magic is limited and is implied to come from a magic item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#ringofElementalCommandFire), and people feel more courageous when he's around even if they don't know he's there. He could summon a super-powerful horse to his side at any time. And he could fight very well with a bastard sword.

Actually, I'd make him an aasimar Druid/Bard/Paladin; maybe 2/3/1 or so.
Shadowfax would be his Animal Companion; the courage would be his bardic music (in the form of inspirational calls and speeches), and his vast knowledge would be his bardic knowledge.

[true_shinken]

Ice Devil. NPC Fighter loses badly.

Zombie. NPC Rogue loses badly.
Rust Monster. Anything that relies on metal loses badly.
Just because you have a monster that challenges one type of character, it does not mean that said character 'sucks'.



Actually it is more of the opposite. Dragoon or many other experienced posters could probably make a quite effective fighter (like jack B quick, or a good trip or charge build) that would be appropriate in most games.

A TWF or S&B fighter made by a non-optimizer (or worse, a fighter who spreads his feats among 2 or more fighting styles), on the other hand, is very likely weaker than a druid's pet at a similar level of optimization. Or a cleric or wizard who decide that one of a handful of core spells (polymorph, divine power, righteous might) sound like fun. Heck, or even a barbarian. You don't need ToB to demonstrate that fighters aren't very good at fighting. You need a lot of optimization to MAKE the fighter good at fighting.
Have you actually played with any of those? Do you realize not every group would include a Druid, even? If the wizard has polymorph, he should cast it on the fighter, since he gets the most benefit, for starters.
Barbarians might deal a lot of damage. Fighters hit more reliably and have higher AC. You'd surprised how effective a Fighter can be from level 1. Really, you guys should play every once in a while instead of just relying on info you read in some handbook somewhere. It's nowhere as bad as it seems.
Just because Barbarians kill things really really fast, it does not mean a fighter is bad at fighting. Just because a F-1 car is very fast, does it mean a F-Indy car is 'bad at racing'?

[Starbuck_II]

Zombie. NPC Rogue loses badly.
Rust Monster. Anything that relies on metal loses badly.
Just because you have a monster that challenges one type of character, it does not mean that said character 'sucks'.


Depends. The NPC Rogue can buy a slashing weapon.
There are slashing arrows if you do archery.

So yeah while not as effective, you can do it.

How does NPC Fighter beat Ice Devil.

[IcarusWings]

Have you actually played with any of those? Do you realize not every group would include a Druid, even? If the wizard has polymorph, he should cast it on the fighter, since he gets the most benefit, for starters.
that is still meaning that the fighter has to rely on another party member to contribute.


Barbarians might deal a lot of damage. Fighters hit more reliably and have higher AC. You'd surprised how effective a Fighter can be from level 1. Really, you guys should play every once in a while instead of just relying on info you read in some handbook somewhere. It's nowhere as bad as it seems.
Just because Barbarians kill things really really fast, it does not mean a fighter is bad at fighting. Just because a F-1 car is very fast, does it mean a F-Indy car is 'bad at racing'?

The point isn't that the fighter is bad at fighting, the point is that that''s all they can do, they have no use outside of combat, and even in combat any caster could easily render them useless with a simple low-level spell.

[DragoonWraith]

Have you actually played with any of those? Do you realize not every group would include a Druid, even? If the wizard has polymorph, he should cast it on the fighter, since he gets the most benefit, for starters.
I don't play martial types much in any game, really, even games where they're better. That said, I've played in games with Fighter-types, and I absolutely can attest that all of my "theoretical" posting is, in fact, based on my own play experience (even if it was observing another player struggle because the Fighter class is awful).

And seeing as the Wizard's Str is going to go from 8, or 10 at best, to whatever the monster's is, it certainly seems to me that the Wizard is going to benefit from it more. Especially so when you consider that a Wizard can take feats to improve shapechanging for themselves; Assume Supernatural Ability is an obvious example.


Barbarians might deal a lot of damage. Fighters hit more reliably and have higher AC. You'd surprised how effective a Fighter can be from level 1. Really, you guys should play every once in a while instead of just relying on info you read in some handbook somewhere. It's nowhere as bad as it seems.
How do you figure that Fighters hit more reliably? They have the same BAB and Barbarians get +4 to +8 to Str, effectively granting +2 to +4 to Attack. The Fighter gets, what, Greater Weapon Focus for +2?

AC isn't that important most of the time, and past level, say, 5, Mithril Fullplate means that a Barbarian can have nearly as much AC.

Further, your assumptions that I don't play and I'm basing everything I say on "a handbook I read somewhere" is insulting. You're incorrect, so please stop it.


Just because Barbarians kill things really really fast, it does not mean a fighter is bad at fighting. Just because a F-1 car is very fast, does it mean a F-Indy car is 'bad at racing'?
I don't actually know what the difference between a F-1 and F-Indy racecar is, but if one is quite a bit faster and they're in the same race, yes, the slower one is "bad at racing". Just because Fighters can fight far better than any real life mortal human can (at least, past say, level 4), doesn't actually make them good at fighting if they're competing with, say, a Cleric or Druid or Warblade or Ice Devil.

[balistafreak]

Zombie. NPC Rogue loses badly.
Rust Monster. Anything that relies on metal loses badly.
Just because you have a monster that challenges one type of character, it does not mean that said character 'sucks'.

Rogues do have ways of dealing with Zombies at higher levels. Perhaps not with 100% efficiency, but they can. Rogues are also specifically called out as being bad against things without specific anatomy.

Rust Monsters are generally DM lightning bolts. Even then, a well-organized retreat can work. Rust Monster ambushes are usually a sign that the game has gone terribly badly, your DM is just that evil, or the game has reached that level of hilarity, and you're probably all epic-level and tearing apart dimensions.


Have you actually played with any of those?

Yes, in my first few characters.

Even alongside newbs, I noticed that I sucked compared to the Druid and Cleric. Our party Wizard was a flop (having 8 Constitution will do that to you) but even so.


If the wizard has polymorph, he should cast it on the fighter, since he gets the most benefit, for starters.

There is a fair point for the Wizard casting Polymorph on himself - if the party is unable to "hold the line" to protect the squishy Wizard (who is squishy in the first place because he's not utilizing his spells to full power), the Wizard making himself far less squishy is a better idea than concentrating the power in the not-as-squishy party member.


Barbarians might deal a lot of damage. Fighters hit more reliably and have higher AC.

... why, because they take Weapon Focus and wear full-plate? They're both full BAB, Str-dependent classes; without burning feats on pumping to-hit (which is a terrible, terrible waste of a feat) they should be exactly as good. Actually, Barbarians will probably hit more reliably, because they have a class feature that pumps their Strength.

Full-plate is commonly eschewed for the chain shirt/mithril breastplate anyways due to movement penalties, and I can't think of any (worthwhile) ways to raise AC with the Fighter's only class feature, bonus feats.

I do not understand where these statements came from. :smallconfused:


You'd surprised how effective a Fighter can be from level 1.

And 2nd level. They suck at 3rd or beyond, though.


Really, you guys should play every once in a while instead of just relying on info you read in some handbook somewhere. It's nowhere as bad as it seems.

Where do you think those handbooks came from? Angels? Some of us already did. While we had fun roleplaying and doing silly things, mechanically it was a nightmare. Don't presume that all of us are mindless parrots.

And it is as bad as it seems. I want to know what you're playing up against so that your Fighter is as good as Class X.

Just because we can have fun with a Fighter doesn't mean we shouldn't play something else. Settling for less is a... mediocre... mindset.


Just because Barbarians kill things really really fast, it does not mean a fighter is bad at fighting. Just because a F-1 car is very fast, does it mean a F-Indy car is 'bad at racing'?

This argument confuses me. Fighters are better than Commoners, but that doesn't make them good on the absolute scale. Barbarians are pretty mediocre too, just for the record. See that other "Why aren't Barbarians Tier 3" thread for more information.

Your argument: just because one class is "worse" than the other doesn't make it bad absolutely.

Flawed premise: both classes aren't bad absolutely.

Truth: both classes have lots of room for improvement.

EDIT: What Dragoonwraith said.

Call us a cult who can't see the truth, who support each other and make themselves look and sound "right" by citing each other, but that's where we stand. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

true_shinken: What do you mean fighters hit more reliably than Barbarians? Rage increases the barbarians ability to both hit and deal damage, as a class feature, and both classes get full BAB, so it ain't that as a difference.

Fighters have to purposefully choose things like weapon focus and weapon specialization which add nothing to the fighter except a +1 to hit or +2 to damage (and their greater versions which are just the same thing that stacks, so, four feats for +2 to hit, +4 to damage) in core. Which he has to be 8th level to get to. And the Barbarian's +4 to strength from the basic, level 1 rage gives that +2 to hit as well as additional damage. So... that's a level 1 class feature giving better benefit than 2 feats (Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus) and equal benefit to three feats (The first two plus Weapon Specialization).


If I define my setting's magic in the style of Harry Potter, a Binder will be out of place, regardless of what I call its vestiges.

Man, Vancian Casting would be out of place as well. :smalltongue:

And we don't really know that much about the Dark Arts and the wuggaboo non-spell magic, so Binders probably could be worked in there in some form or fashion.

[The_JJ]

*Starts Reading Tread*

*Skips 4 pages*

*Reads another page*

Mkaaay...

So, I don't use ToB because I don't have the cash to shill out for it or the time to learn another system of mechanics. And it really is another system of mechanics. I also don't need to use it because my groups don't need to optimize that much. Yes, in your experience Fighters/non-ToB martials don't function well, in many others, they function great. Which may or my not be tied to mechanical skill. To all sides: deal with it. Rule 0: GM trumps RAW. Rule -1: Whatever works. Now stop telling everyone else how it should work for them.

Re Fluffyness v crunch in classes:
Eh... I (Remember, personal opinion here) think it's important to respect the fluff. Barbarians get mad, clerics are devout, druids do nature, wizards use their minds, sorcs draw on raw power, and pallys run on sweet, sweet fluffy goodness. Things can get blurry, but their are limits to how far I'd stretch a lot of these things.

[Coidzor]

Talk to your DM. Talk to your group, even. Unless someone says the fluff is not what is on the book, it's probably exactly the same. Then you present your refluff... and see if it flies, because it might just as well not fly.

Why, thank you for reminding us of the protocol for doing things in an actual game.

Because on the forums, we never actually play them, instead investing ourselves in a xorvintaalic gambit where we score points by our critiques and theory about the game's mechanics...

...Dangit, now I want a jokethread where some of our more wossname posters square off... :smalleek:

[Terazul]

Maneuver Cards and Warblade are free. And then all the crazy homebrew stuff.

1: Ready Maneuvers. You can use these now.
2: Use Maneuvers. Now they are Expended. You can't use them.
3: Recover Maneuvers with either a full-round action, swift action, or no action at all depending on class.

There you go. You've now learned the entire system.

[Thurbane]

And then the Druid leveled up and his Wolf became Large<>
OT Nitpick: If you mean it became large from the HD it's animal companion status granted it, then I'm fairly sure that's not how it works. Animals get size increases from advancement by HD, but the bonus HD granted to animal companions do not count for this purpose, AFAIK.

[Thurbane]

Except not. Fighter is not as bad as you think outside your highly forumite state of mind. In a game of Monster Manual encounters and DMG NPCs, fighters are not that bad at their work. Not every game is highly optimized, not every game has ToB allowed. So your statement is faulty at best.
I tend to agree with this (somewhat). Characters played arena style in PVP forum matches play out VERY differently than in your typical pen and paper, co-op party games. The fact they exist on a vacuum, and that there is no DM to set challenges or customize adventures makes a huge difference.

And quite honestly, if the only goal of taking a character in D&D is to be the bestest with the mostest (i.e. most damage output potential and most versatility), then why isn't everyone just playing Pun Pun? Most of the various Pun Pun builds are totally RAW legal...

[DragoonWraith]

Maneuver Cards and Warblade are free. And then all the crazy homebrew stuff.

1: Ready Maneuvers. You can use these now.
2: Use Maneuvers. Now they are Expended. You can't use them.
3: Recover Maneuvers with either a full-round action, swift action, or no action at all depending on class.

There you go. You've now learned the entire system.
Actually, the Warblade bit already explains those. The only thing it doesn't explain is Initiator Level, IIRC, and how to qualify for maneuvers. I've heard of people for some reason thinking that you can take a Maneuver of Xth level by having Warblade X, for example - why, I don't know, since it's the same 9 levels as a Wizard, but I have heard it.

Generally, I could legally explain Initiator Level (because you cannot actually trademark game rules, only their presentation), but I think that would be against the forum's rules (and reasonably so; I'm sure the Giant wouldn't appreciate it if someone explained everything in Dungeonscape, for example).


OT Nitpick: If you mean it became large from the HD it's animal companion status granted it, then I'm fairly sure that's not how it works. Animals get size increases from advancement by HD, but the bonus HD granted to animal companions do not count for this purpose, AFAIK.
If you assume that because the statement "An animal companion gains additional skill points and feats for bonus HD as normal for advancing a monster’s Hit Dice" doesn't mention size increases, they don't happen, sure. But it is hardly spelled out that way in the book. The AC gains bonus HD, "as normal for advancing a monster's Hit Dice" - in at least two cases. You can argue that size, not being listed, does not advance normally, but the rules also do not state size as an exception, so I could just as easily argue that in the absence of such an exception, the rule states that they gain HD and when a monster gains HD it might increase in size.

The rules are not clear, and I might be willing to cede that if forced to call one or the other RAW your reading might be more likely, but it's hard to argue it for sure.

Regardless, the wolf was owning the Fighter and Rogue before the size increase ever happened. In fact, the size increase hampered the wolf because of the tight spaces we ended up going into next (and after that the Druid had to stop playing due to RL issues; the Fighter had to take a hiatus not long after). This was everyone's first game, and the disparity was hugely obvious. Even if the size difference doesn't come into play.


I tend to agree with this (somewhat). Characters played arena style in PVP forum matches play out VERY differently than in your typical pen and paper, co-op party games. The fact they exist on a vacuum, and that there is no DM to set challenges or customize adventures makes a huge difference.

And quite honestly, if the only goal of taking a character in D&D is to be the bestest with the mostest (i.e. most damage output potential and most versatility), then why isn't everyone just playing Pun Pun? Most of the various Pun Pun builds are totally RAW legal...
Absolutely true... but it doesn't change the fact that even in regular, unoptimized play, the Fighter often does quite poorly. Because I know my group wasn't optimized, and I know that everyone was keenly aware of the wolf's dominance.

Ironically, the Druid himself didn't really do much. Only got to level 4 though.

[RickGriffin]

And quite honestly, if the only goal of taking a character in D&D is to be the bestest with the mostest (i.e. most damage output potential and most versatility), then why isn't everyone just playing Pun Pun? Most of the various Pun Pun builds are totally RAW legal...

Partly I think because there's a few unspoken houserules that are so pervasive they can be assumed; i.e. most groups will not break the game past a certain level simply because the DM would not be able to handle it (and hence game over, not game won), and it is doubtful that any DM would allow an infinite power loop in a normal game unless he just really wanted to see what would happen.

[true_shinken]

I don't play martial types much in any game, really, even games where they're better. That said, I've played in games with Fighter-types, and I absolutely can attest that all of my "theoretical" posting is, in fact, based on my own play experience (even if it was observing another player struggle because the Fighter class is awful).
That's not the same as playing as a fighter and trying to pull your weight, that's what I meant.


And seeing as the Wizard's Str is going to go from 8, or 10 at best, to whatever the monster's is, it certainly seems to me that the Wizard is going to benefit from it more. Especially so when you consider that a Wizard can take feats to improve shapechanging for themselves; Assume Supernatural Ability is an obvious example.
But Fighters have the feats to make use of that augmented scores. You could Polymorph for Supernatural Abilities, sure, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms... and polymorph is broken anyway.



How do you figure that Fighters hit more reliably? They have the same BAB and Barbarians get +4 to +8 to Str, effectively granting +2 to +4 to Attack. The Fighter gets, what, Greater Weapon Focus for +2?
I have a Fighter and a Barbarian in my game. The Fighter investes in weapons with more plusses, feats that boost his to-hit and stuff like that. The Barbarian gets everything that boosts his damage - his weapon is +1 full of special qualities, while the fighter has a +3 weapon, for example.



AC isn't that important most of the time, and past level, say, 5, Mithril Fullplate means that a Barbarian can have nearly as much AC.
Mithril Fullplate is a bit expensive for a level 5, actually.
And I believe that in games with non-optimized challenges straight out of MM and the like, AC is really important.


Further, your assumptions that I don't play and I'm basing everything I say on "a handbook I read somewhere" is insulting. You're incorrect, so please stop it.
I didn't mean to offend and I apologize for that. I was not talking specifically about anyone. It's just the common forumite mindset that is usually to deep in rules-abuse and too far from practical, actual gaming.


I don't actually know what the difference between a F-1 and F-Indy racecar is, but if one is quite a bit faster and they're in the same race, yes, the slower one is "bad at racing". Just because Fighters can fight far better than any real life mortal human can (at least, past say, level 4), doesn't actually make them good at fighting if they're competing with, say, a Cleric or Druid or Warblade or Ice Devil.

But when you are in the same party... you are not competing. At least you shouldn't be. That's the point I'm adressing. A Fighter does not need to deal as much damage as a Barbarian or be as versatile as a Wizard. He can still contribute, he can still be fun to play and he does not 'suck at fighting'. You can even good Fighter builds out there that could stand up to lots of Barbarians and even casters.

That said, I realize some of my comments might have seemed offensive to other people and while I'm too lazy to adress each one separetely, it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I just dislike the assumption of 'fighters are always bad at fighting' since it is only true in high tier, high optimization play.



Why, thank you for reminding us of the protocol for doing things in an actual game.

Because on the forums, we never actually play them, instead investing ourselves in a xorvintaalic gambit where we score points by our critiques and theory about the game's mechanics...

...Dangit, now I want a jokethread where some of our more wossname posters square off... :smalleek:
I really don't see the point to this kind of personal attack.

[Thurbane]

The rules are not clear, and I might be willing to cede that if forced to call one or the other RAW your reading might be more likely, but it's hard to argue it for sure.
While I know FAQ is not RAW:

An animal companion doesn’t get bigger when it adds extra Hit Dice for the master’s levels. The advancement entries for creatures, and the rules for advancing monsters, refer to unusually powerful specimens that are simply tougher (and perhaps bigger) than normal for their kinds.

[Gnaeus]

Have you actually played with any of those? Do you realize not every group would include a Druid, even? If the wizard has polymorph, he should cast it on the fighter, since he gets the most benefit, for starters.
Barbarians might deal a lot of damage. Fighters hit more reliably and have higher AC. You'd surprised how effective a Fighter can be from level 1. Really, you guys should play every once in a while instead of just relying on info you read in some handbook somewhere. It's nowhere as bad as it seems.
Just because Barbarians kill things really really fast, it does not mean a fighter is bad at fighting. Just because a F-1 car is very fast, does it mean a F-Indy car is 'bad at racing'?

Yes, I have played with all of those classes. Including fighters at level 1.

Just because a certain group doesn't include an Druid, doesn't alter the fact that of Core classes, after level 7, fighter ranks in the bottom half, maybe the bottom quarter, in fighting. If you include all the various, easy non-core combat types (duskblade, Psi-Warrior, any ToB) fighter still comes in...near the bottom. He is also either weaker than most full casters, or weaker than the tanks that said full caster can make or otherwise command. The core wizard can EITHER fight better than the fighter, or dominate slaves that can fight as well as or better than the fighter, or summon outsiders that can fight better than the fighter, or raise undead that can fight better than the fighter, etc. The core druid can summon animals that outfight the fighter, while his pet outfights the fighter, then turn into something that outfights the fighter ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Well built fighters can compete with barbarians. You were talking about low optimization groups. A fighter who falls into one of many gaping traps (two-weapon fighting, sword and shield, trying to be a multi-threat and do more than focus on one style) gets crushed by really simple barbarian builds. The fighter in your metaphor is less like an F-indy car than it is like an F-indy car covered in heavy armored plates from an APC...not fast, not well designed for combat.

[Coidzor]

I really don't see the point to this kind of personal attack.

Well, first I was annoyed. Then that idea it gave me was just so amusing I couldn't help but share it.
Then I wondered how it qualified as a personal attack considering it was reacting to telling us to run things by the DM when that's how things work anyway.

[true_shinken]

I tend to agree with this (somewhat). Characters played arena style in PVP forum matches play out VERY differently than in your typical pen and paper, co-op party games. The fact they exist on a vacuum, and that there is no DM to set challenges or customize adventures makes a huge difference.

And quite honestly, if the only goal of taking a character in D&D is to be the bestest with the mostest (i.e. most damage output potential and most versatility), then why isn't everyone just playing Pun Pun? Most of the various Pun Pun builds are totally RAW legal...

Yes, that's my point exactly. Thanks for pointing it out better than I did, Thurbane.

[Thiyr]

I have a Fighter and a Barbarian in my game. The Fighter investes in weapons with more plusses, feats that boost his to-hit and stuff like that. The Barbarian gets everything that boosts his damage - his weapon is +1 full of special qualities, while the fighter has a +3 weapon, for example.

That doesn't seem to be a function of the classes though. the barbarian could just as easily be choosing accuracy based items and feats instead of damage-based ones, and be more accurate than the fighter. In this case, we're looking for options that are unique to the classes. +3 swords vs +1 shocking keen swords isn't class specific.


I didn't mean to offend and I apologize for that. I was not talking specifically about anyone. It's just the common forumite mindset that is usually to deep in rules-abuse and too far from practical, actual gaming.

I disagree here, as there tends to be enough split between the theoretical end of things and the more practical end of answering. Most of the handbooks I've seen have been good practical advice to use, and while there are some people who joke around by pointing out the more abusive rulings, most threads I've seen requesting help try to provide the asked for help...usually. Of course there are exceptions, but in general I've found advice here very useful in guiding my practical play.


But when you are in the same party... you are not competing. At least you shouldn't be. That's the point I'm adressing. A Fighter does not need to deal as much damage as a Barbarian or be as versatile as a Wizard. He can still contribute, he can still be fun to play and he does not 'suck at fighting'. You can even good Fighter builds out there that could stand up to lots of Barbarians and even casters.

The problem isn't competition, at least not in my eyes and the interpretation I've been making of people here. It's that in a party, they are not able to pull their own weight, meaning the rest of the party needs to compensate for a person who isn't doing much. Being able to contribute to the group's well being is what's important. The fighter can hit hard and take hits if built right, but there is little in the way of fighter-specific feats that, say, a barbarian, warblade, or psychic warrior couldn't take as well. Meaning the fighter doesn't get any real abilities of their own to set them apart, leaving them to fall further behind. Not to say fighters can't be used well. People have pulled up fighter-specific builds that make use of every feat. But that's not something most people will pull out in gameplay, especially in low-op games.



I just dislike the assumption of 'fighters are always bad at fighting' since it is only true in high tier, high optimization play.

As I was saying before, it's more that most other fighting classes can outperform the fighter, given an even level of optimization. The fighter's feats are useful, but unless carefully chosen (typical of higher op games), they don't provide as large of a benefit to compensate the lack of class abilities.

[Gnaeus]

I have a Fighter and a Barbarian in my game. The Fighter investes in weapons with more plusses, feats that boost his to-hit and stuff like that. The Barbarian gets everything that boosts his damage - his weapon is +1 full of special qualities, while the fighter has a +3 weapon, for example.

Uhm, that example is silly. The fighter (as a class) is no better at hitting things (and is in fact worse) than the barbarian as a class. Yes, if I give one character in a particular game better equipment, it does, obviously, make him better. It does not make the class better, and has no relevance at all in a discussion of the system outside that particular game.


I didn't mean to offend and I apologize for that. I was not talking specifically about anyone. It's just the common forumite mindset that is usually to deep in rules-abuse and too far from practical, actual gaming.

And yet more than one of us have clearly stated that our opinions are derived from actual experience in actual, low optimization games. Stating that we are arguing from some forumite hive mind isn't just saying we are wrong, it is actually calling us liars.


But when you are in the same party... you are not competing. At least you shouldn't be. That's the point I'm adressing.

That isn't always true. Some groups are highly competitive. Some people play in evil groups where direct conflict occurs. Some people just feel bad when they go to games and watch the other players (or other player's disposable pets) casually outdo their elite swordsman concept, and that hurts their enjoyment of the game. A class that is presented as a top warrior, should be a top warrior, and it isn't.



A Fighter does not need to deal as much damage as a Barbarian or be as versatile as a Wizard. He can still contribute, he can still be fun to play and he does not 'suck at fighting'.

Anything can be fun to play. He does suck at fighting when compared with other PC classes at similar levels of optimization.

Any player can contribute. The class "fighter" gives sub-par tools for contributing in combat, and almost no tools for contributing out of combat. The Player might be very smart. The DM might give the fighter great magic items. A particular fighter in a particular game could do quite well. The fighter CLASS is a dog with fleas.


You can even good Fighter builds out there that could stand up to lots of Barbarians and even casters.

Fighter builds do not stand up well to Barbarians or casters when played at the same level of optimization. If you have an expert making a fighter and a newb making a sorcerer, the fighter might look awesome. Or if the sorcerer gets lucky with his spell choices, they might be even. In the hands of two experts, or two new players, the fighter is usually behind the barbarian (although the Fighter/barbarian is usually better than either), and is far behind any caster above 3-7th level who isn't intentionally not outshining him

[DeltaEmil]

But Fighters have the feats to make use of that augmented scores. You could Polymorph for Supernatural Abilities, sure, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms... and polymorph is broken anyway.Only if they took the feats in the first place.

I have a Fighter and a Barbarian in my game. The Fighter investes in weapons with more plusses, feats that boost his to-hit and stuff like that. The Barbarian gets everything that boosts his damage - his weapon is +1 full of special qualities, while the fighter has a +3 weapon, for example.A simple 'Greater Magic Weapon'-spell from either a wizard or the cleric will turn the +1 weapon of the barbarian into a superior thing than the wielded by the fighter (who needed a weapon with more enhancements to keep up with the barbarian character in the first place). Also, depending on the special qualities of the barbarian weapon, they might turn out to be a lot better (fire weapon in an ice-themed campaign), or a lot worse than normal (fire weapon in a fire-elemental-plane campaign).

Mithril Fullplate is a bit expensive for a level 5, actually.
And I believe that in games with non-optimized challenges straight out of MM and the like, AC is really important.Only barely, if you go by the expected wealth-by-level chart on page 135 in the DMG. Although a barbarian should use a mithral-breastplate instead anyway, because that way, he keeps his superior movement ability, without being reduced.
Also, the more slavishly you conform to the rules, the worse fighters are without the support of clerics and wizards.
AC becomes a non-issue at level 5 however. Either your enemies hit you all the time, or they can't hit you reliably, and then you don't have enemies to worry about.

But when you are in the same party... you are not competing. At least you shouldn't be. That's the point I'm adressing. A Fighter does not need to deal as much damage as a Barbarian or be as versatile as a Wizard. He can still contribute, he can still be fun to play and he does not 'suck at fighting'. You can even good Fighter builds out there that could stand up to lots of Barbarians and even casters.He needs to have specific builds to stand up to barbarians and even casters? Because that means you have to optimize, just to get the same effect, and need the support of the gm who holds your hand so that you can still contribute, instead of gazing at the summoned wolf who fights enemies better than you do.


I just dislike the assumption of 'fighters are always bad at fighting' since it is only true in high tier, high optimization play.It's also true at lower levels. Not optimizing means being worse than a wolf, and being optimized means being barely as good as a barbarian or a spell-caster.

[DragoonWraith]

That's not the same as playing as a fighter and trying to pull your weight, that's what I meant.
Would you rather I ask the Fighter to come over here and post that "Yeah, Badgereater totally owned, I actually commented on how he was tougher than me"? Because I'm pretty sure he's rather busy with real life right now. Yeah, I could come up with a Fighter that does 2d6+1000 damage per attack or whatever, but I don't want to. I could make a Fighter that is a better fighter than the average Druid AC - but I'd have to work at it. That's just preposterous.

But more importantly, it's boring. Yeah, you can describe your attacks as many ways as you like, but how many people earlier in this thread commented how a lot of times when playing non-ToB martial types, they would say "Yeah, I'm going to full-attack it again. Roll for me while I go to the bathroom" - that's just not well done.

I do a lot of homebrew. I put a lot of effort into them, and I am very concerned about the playability and balance of the classes that I write. I want them to be fun, both to have in the party and to play. I think about design quite a bit. And one thing I've learned from this is that the Fighter is a poorly designed class. And players can tell.


But Fighters have the feats to make use of that augmented scores. You could Polymorph for Supernatural Abilities, sure, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms... and polymorph is broken anyway.
Sure it is. And sure, the Wizard can buff the Fighter - but the Fighter isn't contributing, not really. The Wizard is still the one winning the fight. Sometimes, in some groups, this is OK - a lot of people might not realize how much the arcanist did, and that can work out for a while - but it doesn't take much to realize that "hey, crap, the Wizard really won that for us." Like the time our Beguiler didn't show up - we got owned hard, two PCs died, and the rest of us had to run away with our tails between our legs. Why? No Glitterdust. Turns out blind enemies are a lot less dangerous. We simply weren't ready to handle what came next without him. And I was playing a rather gishy type as it was, not like I was playing a pure Fighter.


I have a Fighter and a Barbarian in my game. The Fighter investes in weapons with more plusses, feats that boost his to-hit and stuff like that. The Barbarian gets everything that boosts his damage - his weapon is +1 full of special qualities, while the fighter has a +3 weapon, for example.
OK, so wait, you stated that the Fighter has better to-hit... because one particular Fighter in your game got things that boosted his to-hit and one particular Barbarian didn't? Right, OK.

Also, the Barbarian with a +1 whatever blah-blah weapon should have had roughly the same to-hit as the Fighter with the +3 weapon, and a lot more damage, because hey, +3 minus +1 equals +2, exactly what Rage is giving to the Barbarian. And if you mean the Fighter wasted a couple of feats on Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, well... let's just say that I really hope the three feats spent getting an extra 10% chance to hit for +1 extra damage worked out for him, but I tend to doubt it. Notice that +2 attack/+2 damage (the entire Fighter-only feat tree) is exactly equivalent to the bonuses from Rage (actually, scratch that; Rage also gives +2 to Con and +2 to Will) at level 1 with no feat investment.


Mithril Fullplate is a bit expensive for a level 5, actually.
I don't actually have the WBL chart memorized. I know I had a character who had that at level 5 (actually, IIRC, it was a +1 Nimble Mithral Fullplate), but we might have been playing with extra cash or something; I don't really remember. Point is, soon enough, if it really becomes important.


And I believe that in games with non-optimized challenges straight out of MM and the like, AC is really important.
Based on what, exactly?

But anyway, I'll grant you that at lower levels, AC is a bit more important. Later on, it becomes pretty useless. But the Wizard can still have a 20% miss chance at level 3. And miss chance is almost always better than AC.


I didn't mean to offend and I apologize for that. I was not talking specifically about anyone. It's just the common forumite mindset that is usually to deep in rules-abuse and too far from practical, actual gaming.
Yeah, I'm sure. If you didn't mean to offend, you probably should stop talking about this mythological "common forumite mindset that is usually to [sic] dep in rules-abuse and too far from practical, actual gaming". It doesn't exist. And it's insulting that you continue to assert that it does. We all play the game here. GitP isn't even a particularly optimizing forum; Brilliant Gameologists or Wizards' own is far more so. We all know the differences between TO and practical gaming. These problems are not illusory, they are real, and they are felt in actual games.


But when you are in the same party... you are not competing. At least you shouldn't be. That's the point I'm adressing. A Fighter does not need to deal as much damage as a Barbarian or be as versatile as a Wizard. He can still contribute, he can still be fun to play and he does not 'suck at fighting'. You can even good Fighter builds out there that could stand up to lots of Barbarians and even casters.
Except that too often he's not really contributing. The Barbarian can soak damage better, hits as often if not more, and always hits harder. With Complete Champion, he's also a lot more mobile. That makes him something of a real threat.

How is a Fighter contributing when every monster just ignores him, goes right past him (even taking an AoO if necessary), and attacks the real threat, in the casters? Because that does happen all too often, and in many cases when it doesn't, it logically should and the only reason that it doesn't is because the DM is coddling the Fighter's player.


That said, I realize some of my comments might have seemed offensive to other people and while I'm too lazy to adress each one separetely, it was not my intention to offend anyone.
I just dislike the assumption of 'fighters are always bad at fighting' since it is only true in high tier, high optimization play.
It's not only true in high tier, high optimization play. At any level of optimization, the Fighter needs to be more optimized in order to compete - and there's a rather low ceiling on how far that can go.



While I know FAQ is not RAW:
Fair enough. My DM didn't see that, though, and quite reasonably read the rules on the Druid page, didn't see an exception for size, and assumed that size was included. The Wolf grew. It actually turned out to be bad for the Wolf, so really the problem would have only been worse if he'd gotten in right (though, I suspect, since he's a rather good DM, that the size thing becoming an issue was on purpose to help out the Fighter). Even before leveling up, at level 3, the Wolf was still better than both the Fighter and Rogue combined.

[balistafreak]

AC becomes a non-issue at level 5 however. Either your enemies hit you all the time, or they can't hit you reliably, and then you don't have enemies to worry about.

Nitpick: some minor AC optimization can make it matter up to around 10th level. After that, though, I will agree it's an either/or case, even in the case of "armored" types - that's when you start investing in other defense methods.

[Thurbane]

I would have to say that in regards to hitting things, Fighter's might have a slight advantage, because of the amount of feats they have to invest...Blind Fight, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus etc. all contribute to more/better chances to hit things.

See the list here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134446

This is somewhat offset by the Barbarian's higher STR during a rage, though...

[Coidzor]

I would have to say that in regards to hitting things, Fighter's might have a slight advantage, because of the amount of feats they have to invest...Blind Fight, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus etc. all contribute to more/better chances to hit things.

Yeah, but Combat reflexes AoO stuffs, Improved Trip, that sort of thing probably gets mentally filed under combat tricks rather than ability to hit.

[Gnaeus]

I would have to say that in regards to hitting things, Fighter's might have a slight advantage, because of the amount of feats they have to invest...Blind Fight, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus etc. all contribute to more/better chances to hit things.


The barbarian can charge across a battlefield and deliver a full attack with pounce, while the fighter is doing a move + single attack. That alone will usually more than compensate for the extra attacks from Cleave and Combat Reflexes, unless you are talking about specific sub-groups of fighters like battlefield controllers. Weapon focus is pathetic compared with rage. Blind fight is the only feat in that list that barbarians don't beat as a class feature, and they can always just take the feat themselves.

[Thurbane]

The barbarian can charge across a battlefield and deliver a full attack with pounce, while the fighter is doing a move + single attack. That alone will usually more than compensate for the extra attacks from Cleave and Combat Reflexes, unless you are talking about specific sub-groups of fighters like battlefield controllers. Weapon focus is pathetic compared with rage. Blind fight is the only feat in that list that barbarians don't beat as a class feature, and they can always just take the feat themselves.
Yeah, true, ACFs are a factor too. There's plenty of ways for a Fighter to get pounce (or an equivalent), though...

[true_shinken]

Would you rather I ask the Fighter to come over here and post that "Yeah, Badgereater totally owned, I actually commented on how he was tougher than me"? Because I'm pretty sure he's rather busy with real life right now. Yeah, I could come up with a Fighter that does 2d6+1000 damage per attack or whatever, but I don't want to. I could make a Fighter that is a better fighter than the average Druid AC - but I'd have to work at it. That's just preposterous.
I don't see your point here.


But more importantly, it's boring.
It's boring for you. I believe lots of people actually enjoy coming up with the feat combos Fighter makes possible.


Yeah, you can describe your attacks as many ways as you like, but how many people earlier in this thread commented how a lot of times when playing non-ToB martial types, they would say "Yeah, I'm going to full-attack it again. Roll for me while I go to the bathroom" - that's just not well done.
I'm not even anti-ToB or anything. I really like it. I don't understand what you are trying to say.


I do a lot of homebrew. I put a lot of effort into them, and I am very concerned about the playability and balance of the classes that I write. I want them to be fun, both to have in the party and to play. I think about design quite a bit. And one thing I've learned from this is that the Fighter is a poorly designed class. And players can tell.
Wizard is also a poorly designed class. And Artificer. And Cleric. And Druid. And Archivist. They just can do so much stuff and break the game in so much ways that the system can't support'em em provide apropriate challenges (other than completly over-CRed monsters or other members of the big five).
But don't people don't say 'don't play a Wizard, it's bad design, they are broken'. Is it only bad design if it is weak? Then we should all the playing Pun-Pun.



Sure it is. And sure, the Wizard can buff the Fighter - but the Fighter isn't contributing, not really. The Wizard is still the one winning the fight.
I don't agree with your way of viewing the game. 'winning the fight'? It's about telling a story. The fighter helps the wizard with his actions - while the Wizard is casting spells, the fighter is buffed and full-attacking.


Sometimes, in some groups, this is OK - a lot of people might not realize how much the arcanist did, and that can work out for a while - but it doesn't take much to realize that "hey, crap, the Wizard really won that for us." Like the time our Beguiler didn't show up - we got owned hard, two PCs died, and the rest of us had to run away with our tails between our legs. Why? No Glitterdust. Turns out blind enemies are a lot less dangerous. We simply weren't ready to handle what came next without him. And I was playing a rather gishy type as it was, not like I was playing a pure Fighter.
I... don't understand. First you complain about personal examples from my tabl and then you present your own? I'm really confused.



OK, so wait, you stated that the Fighter has better to-hit... because one particular Fighter in your game got things that boosted his to-hit and one particular Barbarian didn't? Right, OK.
I... don't understand. First you complain about personal examples from my table and then you present your own? I'm really confused.



I don't actually have the WBL chart memorized. I know I had a character who had that at level 5 (actually, IIRC, it was a +1 Nimble Mithral Fullplate), but we might have been playing with extra cash or something; I don't really remember. Point is, soon enough, if it really becomes important.
Ok, we all get confused some times.


But anyway, I'll grant you that at lower levels, AC is a bit more important. Later on, it becomes pretty useless. But the Wizard can still have a 20% miss chance at level 3. And miss chance is almost always better than AC.
I'm not going to argue here. There is no reason why you can't both get high AC and miss chance.



Yeah, I'm sure. If you didn't mean to offend, you probably should stop talking about this mythological "common forumite mindset that is usually to [sic] dep in rules-abuse and too far from practical, actual gaming". It doesn't exist. And it's insulting that you continue to assert that it does. We all play the game here. GitP isn't even a particularly optimizing forum; Brilliant Gameologists or Wizards' own is far more so. We all know the differences between TO and practical gaming. These problems are not illusory, they are real, and they are felt in actual games.
In a few games, they might. I'm not discussing this. I've been around 339 for a long while and I wrote quite a few handbooks, even. I understand what you are saying, but the whole optimization community has created an internet environment that becomes a lot different than actual games a lot of times. I also say this out of experience.



Except that too often he's not really contributing. The Barbarian can soak damage better, hits as often if not more, and always hits harder. With Complete Champion, he's also a lot more mobile. That makes him something of a real threat.
But that does not mean he is not contributing. The fighter could be using a reach weapon, he could trip, he could cause status effects via feats. You are just considerng the Fighter can't keep up, but he could, really.
Also, charging is nowhere as easy as it seems at first place. You need a straight line and you can't charge over difficult terrain. Any enemy with a clue will come prepared and not be charge-able.


How is a Fighter contributing when every monster just ignores him, goes right past him (even taking an AoO if necessary), and attacks the real threat, in the casters? Because that does happen all too often, and in many cases when it doesn't, it logically should and the only reason that it doesn't is because the DM is coddling the Fighter's player.
Well, some Fighter builds don't allow them to be ignored. So you move... the Fighter with Double-Hit hits you twice. With the first hit, he makes you Stand Still. With the other, he trips/stuns/dazes/nauseates you.



It's not only true in high tier, high optimization play. At any level of optimization, the Fighter needs to be more optimized in order to compete - and there's a rather low ceiling on how far that can go.
I agree with that. I just don't think D&D should be competitive. I's not designed for that.

[Ashiel]

Yeah, true, ACFs are a factor too. There's plenty of ways for a Fighter to get pounce (or an equivalent), though...

At my table, we call him Warblade. :smalltongue:

Though I prefer Psychic Warriors. :smallsmile:

[Thurbane]

I'm lead to believe that one of the optimal charge attacks is the Leap Attack/Shock Trooper combo. This combo requires quite a few feats, all of which are Fighter Bonus feats, from memory.

Aside from just damage dealing potential, the Fighter's bag-o-feats also allows more customization and more versatility (on average) than, say, a Barbarian. It frees up his non-Fighter feats to be invested in things other than combat feats. It's a lot easier, for example, for a Fighter to invest feats in non-combat feat chains than a Barbarian, as the Barbarian has to put most of his feats into combat oriented ones.

I'm not claiming the Fighter is some super-dooper class that can do anything any other melee class can do at all: I'm just saying that, in my experience, it isn't quite the lame-duck that a lot of internet posters claim it to be. The bundle of feats they get can be great for specific builds. Whether these builds are optimal, or just fun for the player concerned is, of course, open for debate.

[RickGriffin]

I'm not claiming the Fighter is some super-dooper class that can do anything any other melee class can do at all: I'm just saying that, in my experience, it isn't quite the lame-duck that a lot of internet posters claim it to be. The bundle of feats they get can be great for specific builds. Whether these builds are optimal, or just fun for the player concerned is, of course, open for debate.

Well of course the Fighter is about on the same level as the Barbarian, and is certainly not a lame duck when compared with, say, the Commoner, or the CW Samurai.

When the extent of most of your sessions goes 'hit this guy really hard' and the wizard is not one-shotting everyone but rather doing battlefield control, and you don't have CoDzilla on your side outclassing you, then yes, the Fighter is very useful and contributes a great deal.

[Runestar]

I don't agree with your way of viewing the game. 'winning the fight'? It's about telling a story. The fighter helps the wizard with his actions - while the Wizard is casting spells, the fighter is buffed and full-attacking.

From a resource-conservation POV, it can be argued that polymorphed wizard+fighter > wizard sniping with reserve feats + polymorphed fighter.

This also brings up another point - how far is the spellcaster expected to buff up the fighter, or obligated even? Sure, the wizard can spend a ton of resources turning the fighter into a force to be reckoned with, but should he have to? Especially when the same slots could just as readily be used to make light work of the encounter. :smalltongue:

[TaintedLight]

This also brings up another point - how far is the spellcaster expected to buff up the fighter, or obligated even? Sure, the wizard can spend a ton of resources turning the fighter into a force to be reckoned with, but should he have to? Especially when the same slots could just as readily be used to make light work of the encounter. :smalltongue:

THANK YOU. This brilliantly illustrates a point I've argued before: the fighter is reliant on someone else to help him do his job. Without the makers of magic items and casters of spells, he cannot fly. He cannot see through illusions. His mind is weak and vulnerable. His sword can only cut material flesh. And on and on and on.

The Tome of Battle provides a set of abilities that allow the martial types to, if not completely, partially overcome these weaknesses. Feeling a little subpar for area damage? Wyrm's Flame. Yes, a bad manuever, but still an option if you want it. You can fly to a degree with Balance on the Sky. You can achieve worthwhile tactical manuever results like bull rushing or knockdown with NO feat investment with Setting Sun manuevers. You can bolster your personal defenses with Diamond Mind and Iron Heart manuevers.

None of this is available to a core fighter, who is essentially the same as a monster. The difference is, a monster has bigger numbers and comparing one's to-hit, AC, damage, and saves to the monster's numbers in those same fields is ultimately what fighters do short of magical gear, which ANYONE can have and is not a component of a class's skill set. Smaller numbers means an expected value of you lose. The wizard can help you change that, but why should he? The ultimate goal is to overcome a challenge, is it not? That goal can be achieved much easier by just ending the encounter rather than taking a moment to pump up someone else's numbers. The wizard player should not be obligated to help the fighter player fulfill his role, and the fighter player should not be forced to rely on someone else to help him contribute.

[Fax Celestis]

I do a lot of homebrew. I put a lot of effort into them, and I am very concerned about the playability and balance of the classes that I write. I want them to be fun, both to have in the party and to play. I think about design quite a bit. And one thing I've learned from this is that the Fighter is a poorly designed class. And players can tell.

This argument, right here, is why we have these fighter arguments. The reason the barbarian is better than the fighter is because he gets to do something a fighter never can: rage. He has an option that is inaccessible to the fighter, but still has access to everything that makes the fighter a fighter: sure, he gets less of them, but he still gets feats.

Aside from Weapon Specialization and some PHB-II omg-you-really-took-fifteen-levels-of-fighter feats, there is nothing that a fighter can do that a barbarian cannot also do. This makes a very poorly designed class.

Frankly, the fighter itself offends me as a designer: it has no unique features, and its only ability is an evenly paced "pick it yourself" ability. To me, it says, "here, we were too lazy to come up with a class that actually had features, so we thought we'd just toss this together and call it done. Hope that's okay!"

Well, in my book, it's not. The fighter disgusts me, not because it mechanically sucks (which it does, but this can be compensated for with some work), but because it is a jury-rigged piece of garbage, a poor excuse for a class, and not worth the paper it is printed on. I would rather play a truenamer or a healer or a monk samurai before I would play a fighter, because at least the people who wrote those classes had the imagination to come up with unique and interesting (if not well-thought out or mechanically balanced) things for those classes to do! And in a game fundamentally based around imagination, lacking the imagination to come up with something interesting and dynamic is a very, very poor mark.


Wizard is also a poorly designed class. And Artificer. And Cleric. And Druid. And Archivist. They just can do so much stuff and break the game in so much ways that the system can't support'em em provide apropriate challenges (other than completly over-CRed monsters or other members of the big five).
But don't people don't say 'don't play a Wizard, it's bad design, they are broken'. Is it only bad design if it is weak? Then we should all the playing Pun-Pun.

It is not bad design because it mechanically sucks. It is bad design because it lacks creativity and imagination. The wizard, at least, has interesting spells that can be used in a variety of ways: more than anything else, these are his class features. The cleric and druid also get interesting features: the former gets domains, the latter gets wildshape and venom immunity and timeless body and trackless step. While some of these are very very powerful (wildshape) and others are largely fluff (timeless body), at least they are not "Bonus feat". The person who made the druid took time and thought about neat and interesting things that would make this character into a "druid", rather than "a dude with a bear".

I am going to be shot for this, but the monk is an example of good design in theory. It has interesting, unique class features you cannot get anywhere else. It has thematically appropriate abilities that are not be-all-end-all abilities. It has very very few things that overlap with other classes. Nobody else gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon: despite it coming too late and not really being worth anything mechanically, it is more interesting and thought-out than "Bonus Feat".

[Terazul]

What Fax Said
Basically this times a million. Though, psst. You mixed up the first mention of Barb and Fighter there in your second sentence.

[TaintedLight]

This argument, right here, is why we have these fighter arguments. The reason the fighter is better than the barbarian is because he gets to do something a fighter never can: rage. He has an option that is inaccessible to the fighter, but still has access to everything that makes the fighter a fighter: sure, he gets less of them, but he still gets feats.

Aside from Weapon Specialization and some PHB-II omg-you-really-took-fifteen-levels-of-fighter feats, there is nothing that a fighter can do that a barbarian cannot also do. This makes a very poorly designed class.

Frankly, the fighter itself offends me as a designer: it has no unique features, and its only ability is an evenly paced "pick it yourself" ability. To me, it says, "here, we were too lazy to come up with a class that actually had features, so we thought we'd just toss this together and call it done. Hope that's okay!"

Well, in my book, it's not. The fighter disgusts me, not because it mechanically sucks (which it does, but this can be compensated for with some work), but because it is a jury-rigged piece of garbage, a poor excuse for a class, and not worth the paper it is printed on. I would rather play a truenamer or a healer or a monk samurai before I would play a fighter, because at least the people who wrote those classes had the imagination to come up with unique and interesting (if not well-thought out or mechanically balanced) things for those classes to do! And in a game fundamentally based around imagination, lacking the imagination to come up with something interesting and dynamic is a very, very poor mark.

While I do agree that the fighter is a terrible class, there is something to be said for a base that is so wildly customizable. How does one come up with a platform for making ANY kind of warrior you want to otherwise? The range of options available to a fighter, while not good enough to make up for the individual weakness of each of those options, is attractive. I hate the Swashbuckler personally.

I think that same concept can be done about as well or better by a fighter choosing to specialize in light armor, rapier, and different manueverability options. Similarly, a fighter can be the classic sword-and-board meat-tank that Regdar and Tordek so obnoxiously epitomize. Perhaps this would have been better done as several sub-archetypes rather than just the tastelessly blank slate that is Fighter 3.5, but the need for a fully-customizable platform is far from nonexistent.

[Fax Celestis]

How does one come up with a platform for making ANY kind of warrior you want to otherwise?

Tome of Battle did it just fine.

[DragoonWraith]

To be fair, the CW Samurai isn't any better than the Fighter. The Samurai is basically a Fighter with pre-selected feats. It could literally have been a series of ACFs or substitution levels for the Fighter class, except that for the most part they would say "instead of your normal bonus feat, you get this bonus feat". How many of its features are actually unique? Not many.

[Fax Celestis]

To be fair, the CW Samurai isn't any better than the Fighter. The Samurai is basically a Fighter with pre-selected feats. It could literally have been a series of ACFs or substitution levels for the Fighter class, except that for the most part they would say "instead of your normal bonus feat, you get this bonus feat". How many of its features are actually unique? Not many.

Some > none.

[TaintedLight]

Tome of Battle did it just fine.

Exactly. One of the houserules that I use is that Fighter levels count as full initiator levels and a fighter may select Martial Study and Martial Stance as many times as he wants to. This allows him to not only gain access to good manuevers to help him out, but also gives him the option to supplement those manuevers with cool stuff like tactical feats that he might not otherwise have had room to take. Tome of Battle gives the warrior concept more flexibility than the fighter, or alternatively lends the fighter some of that flexibility in exchange for his numerous floating feat choices.

[Starbuck_II]

I am going to be shot for this, but the monk is an example of good design in theory. It has interesting, unique class features you cannot get anywhere else. It has thematically appropriate abilities that are not be-all-end-all abilities. It has very very few things that overlap with other classes. Nobody else gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon: despite it coming too late and not really being worth anything mechanically, it is more interesting and thought-out than "Bonus Feat".

Okay, at face value I laugh. But yeah, kinda sorta I agree. The idea of the monk abilities is good even if execution isn't.
No one else gets Tongue of Sun/Moon.
It does fall into Bonus feat issue at low levels (but then at low levels it is actually enjoyable).
If there was more synergy the monk might be fun and good game design.

[Coidzor]

fully-customizable platform

Which a fighter could be if the feat system were different.

[TaintedLight]

Which a fighter could be if the feat system were different.

The problem is that the fighter's list of bonus feats is relatively small and unimpressive. The idea behind giving them bonus feats everywhere was that there exists a potentially HUGE spectrum of different skillsets that can all call themselves fighter. The word "fighter" does not really have a fixed meaning. Any knight, samurai, warrior, swashbuckler, barbarian, etc. could call himself a fighter. They just chose a particular MO that was not so much in flux at the start of their careers. Either fighter feats need to be more compelling and/or exclusive, or the fighter needs new class features.

[Emmerask]

...
The ultimate goal is to overcome a challenge, is it not?

Correct till that point, the ultimate goal is for everyone at the table to have fun.
Well perhaps not for every single group out there though I´m quite sure it is for the vast majority ^^.

I had great sessions where we did not overcome the challenges but where forced to run away, we even lost campaigns and I still have fond memories of them :smallsmile:

You are correct however that for some people the ultimate goal is to overcome the challenges but it is no universal truth.

Anyway that is more or less nitpicking :smalltongue:
I think you are more or less obliged to buff the beatsticks as long as it does not reduce your fun to an unreasonable level.
If the wizard or cleric refuses to buff the group before combat without any good reason (not enough spellslots for example) I would ask why this group even sticks together at all if they don´t help eachother. If on the other hand the cleric is asked to buff or heal the whole battle the group should get an npc for that except someone is absolutely into that kind of gameplay.

[TaintedLight]

Correct till that point, the ultimate goal is for everyone at the table to have fun.
Well perhaps not for every single group out there though I´m quite sure it is for the vast majority ^^.

I had great sessions where we did not overcome the challenges but where forced to run away, we even lost campaigns and I still have fond memories of them :smallsmile:

You are correct however that for some people the ultimate goal is to overcome the challenges but it is no universal truth.

Anyway that is more or less nitpicking :smalltongue:
I think you are more or less obliged to buff the beatsticks as long as it does not reduce your fun to an unreasonable level.
If the wizard or cleric refuses to buff the group before combat without any good reason (not enough spellslots for example) I would ask why this group even sticks together at all if they don´t help eachother. If on the other hand the cleric is asked to buff or heal the whole battle the group should get an npc for that except someone is absolutely into that kind of gameplay.

Why can't running away be overcoming a challenge? You got out alive.

That aside, when the battle is joined or the conversation is in full swing, it seems like a deliberately dumb choice to stop and slow down your victory or coach the socially inept bar-brawler in fine ettiquete when someone who's well suited to the task already could just DO it. Demanding that the wizard support the fighter with no return on investment is simply not fair and is demeaning to the fighter. The wizard is now playing baby sitter instead of problem solver and the fighter has to ask someone else to help him out of bed in the morning instead of figuring out how to do it with his own skill and ingenuity.

[Emmerask]

Why can't running away be overcoming a challenge? You got out alive.


Sure it can be it depends on your goals vs the enemies goals though surviving is not always overcoming the challenge ^^



That aside, when the battle is joined or the conversation is in full swing, it seems like a deliberately dumb choice to stop and slow down your victory or coach the socially inept bar-brawler in fine ettiquete when someone who's well suited to the task already could just DO it. Demanding that the wizard support the fighter with no return on investment is simply not fair and is demeaning to the fighter. The wizard is now playing baby sitter instead of problem solver and the fighter has to ask someone else to help him out of bed in the morning instead of figuring out how to do it with his own skill and ingenuity.

I though we were talking about fights and not the other roleplaying aspects, maybe I misunderstood your points before?
Buffing the fighter is still being problem solver to me,
you buff him, he can now make use of his "I can deal damage" and is happy.

Don´misunderstand, I´m not talking about forcing the caster to exclusively buff the beatstick for 3 or even more round during the actual fight, but tossing some buffs prefight or a flight buff during the fight has in most cases a pretty good return^^
So obliged yes, but within reason

[TaintedLight]

Sure it can be and depends on your goals vs the enemies goals but surviving is not always overcoming the challenge ^^



I though we were talking about fights and not the other roleplaying aspects, maybe I misunderstood your points before?
Buffing the fighter is still being problem solver to me,
you buff him, he can now make use of his "I can deal damage" and is happy.

Don´misunderstand, I´m not talking about forcing the caster to exclusively buff the beatstick for 3 or even more round during the actual fight, but tossing some buffs prefight or a flight buff during the fight has in most cases a pretty good return^^
So obliged yes, but within reason

Combat is important, but other aspects of the game are just as legitimate considerations. Even if we just focus on combat, how useful would it be for the wizard to toss around a few pre-fight buffs when he doesn't necessarily know what's coming? The next fight could be hours off or around the next corner. Most of the really worthwhile buffs are self only anyways, like Tenser's Transformation and Divine Power. Bite of the X spells? The total return on spells invested is much greater when the wizard buffs himself, if buffing is even the most appropriate/effective solution to a problem.

Ultimately, I suppose I just disagree with your premise that one player is obligated to enable another to do his job competently. I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy playing characters who need life support to function at a basic level of competency in a narrow field of expertise.

[The Shadowmind]

The problem is that the fighter's list of bonus feats is relatively small and unimpressive. The idea behind giving them bonus feats everywhere was that there exists a potentially HUGE spectrum of different skillsets that can all call themselves fighter. The word "fighter" does not really have a fixed meaning. Any knight, samurai, warrior, swashbuckler, barbarian, etc. could call himself a fighter. They just chose a particular MO that was not so much in flux at the start of their careers. Either fighter feats need to be more compelling and/or exclusive, or the fighter needs new class features.

The generic warrior class is almost strictly better than the fighter, you pretty much lose only heavy armor prof. and instead get to select your save, skills, and the any feat. So it is a closer direct replacement for it.

[TaintedLight]

The generic warrior class is almost strictly better than the fighter, you pretty much lose only heavy armor prof. and instead get to select your save, skills, and the any feat. So it is a closer direct replacement for it.

Really? Perhaps this is not what you were referring to (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm), but it looks to me like that's a fighter minus some skills and bonus feats, but is otherwise identical.

Even if that were the case, my point is not that the fighter is good. My point was that the fighter attempts to be widely adaptable to a huge range of character concepts. A lot of feats let you do that in a certain way.

[Thurbane]

No, thats the NPC Warrior lass - he means the Generic Warrior alternate class presented in UA.

http://dndsrd.net/unearthedNewClasses.html

[TaintedLight]

No, thats the NPC Warrior lass - he means the Generic Warrior alternate class presented in UA.

http://dndsrd.net/unearthedNewClasses.html

Thanks for that, I didn't know about them. My point, however, still stands. In fact, that generic warrior class even more exemplifies the (ultimately poorly executed) design philosophy that is the core fighter--customizable in any way that feats and skills can achieve. The problem is that feats are limited in what they can do because anyone can have them and they don't even have to invest levels in a certain class to get many of them. It's a question of opportunity cost, and the opportunity cost for feats is much lower than it is for class features. If feats were good enough to sub for class features for a fighter, they would be that much better for everyone else.

[Emmerask]

Combat is important, but other aspects of the game are just as legitimate considerations.

Yes, though in my experience people use so many ways to play the none combat part of the game in actual play that raw talk only has truth for few groups there (afaik) so I for the most part try to stick to the "knowns" which is combat so I tend to ignore that part mostly :smallsmile:



Even if we just focus on combat, how useful would it be for the wizard to toss around a few pre-fight buffs when he doesn't necessarily know what's coming? The next fight could be hours off or around the next corner. Most of the really worthwhile buffs are self only anyways, like Tenser's Transformation and Divine Power. Bite of the X spells? The total return on spells invested is much greater when the wizard buffs himself, if buffing is even the most appropriate/effective solution to a problem.


Action economy is a pretty powerful tool, reducing it for the sake of having one slightly more powerful character is often times a mistake.
While some of the most powerful buffs are self only there are still very good group or targeted ones fly, invisibility, haste, <forgot the name but there was a druid spell that allowed touch attacks for the group > etc




Ultimately, I suppose I just disagree with your premise that one player is obligated to enable another to do his job competently. I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy playing characters who need life support to function at a basic level of competency in a narrow field of expertise.

Well needing life support to function at a basic level is surely exaggerated most stuff in the mm´s can be hit and killed by the fighter pretty easily which is his narrow field of expertise but yes the later the level the more help he needs but magic items solve some of the problems (which I don´t see as outside help).


Where does it say that about the warrior I only have the srd here atm and there is doesn´t say anything about it?`
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm

[TaintedLight]

Yes, though in my experience people use so many ways to play the none combat part of the game in actual play that raw talk only has truth for few groups there so I tend to stick to the "knowns" which is combat so I tend to ignore that part for the most part :smallsmile:

If you just let everyone's player personality handle all aspects of communication and social interaction, you are robbing the rogue, bard, beguiler, and other classes designed to be charmers and leaders of their important function. Why be a diplomat rogue (as it describes in the PHB!) when any other class is JUST as good at it?


Action economy is a pretty powerful tool, reducing it for the sake of having one slightly more powerful character is often times a mistake.
While some of the most powerful buffs are self only there are still very good group or targeted ones fly, invisibility, haste, <forgot the name but there was a druid spell that allowed touch attacks for the group > etc

Action economy is very powerful. Not having to waste time casting spells on the other guys is good too. See persistent metamagic. The point is that any and all of those buffs could be cast by the wizard ON the wizard. What compelling reason exists to make the fighter the focus of some blase spells when you could be wading into battle and doing it yourself but better?


Well needing life support to function at a basic level is surely exaggerated most stuff in the mm´s can be hit and killed by the fighter pretty easily which is his narrow field of expertise but yes the later the level the more help he needs but magic items solve some of the problems (which I don´t see as outside help).

Magic items are something that ANYONE can have. My wizard will make better use of a +5 Holy Avenger than your fighter will. Similarly, anyone can lose their items. What happens to the fighter if he gets captured or his weapon is sundered? Better hope he spent a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike, because even then he's going to suck until he gets his gear back. Not so for a sorcerer. Not so for a wizard with Eidetic Spellcaster or a cleric.


Where does it say that about the warrior I only have the srd here atm and there is doesn´t say anything about it?`
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm

Thurbane posted a link on the last page.

[Emmerask]

If you just let everyone's player personality handle all aspects of communication and social interaction, you are robbing the rogue, bard, beguiler, and other classes designed to be charmers and leaders of their important function. Why be a diplomat rogue (as it describes in the PHB!) when any other class is JUST as good at it?


I´m not saying it is better or even that my group plays that way (and therefore I don´t defend it^^), just saying that it vastly differs, some use roleplaying only, and some use rolls only and basically everything in-between I have seen too :smallbiggrin:
So all there was to that comment is that I would only comment on the part which I think is at least halfway equal in most games which is the fighting part.



Thurbane posted a link on the last page.

Ah, thanks! UA it is :smallsmile:

[Philistine]

Action economy is a pretty powerful tool, reducing it for the sake of having one slightly more powerful character is often times a mistake.
While some of the most powerful buffs are self only there are still very good group or targeted ones fly, invisibility, haste, <forgot the name but there was a druid spell that allowed touch attacks for the group > etc

Well needing life support to function at a basic level is surely exaggerated most stuff in the mm´s can be hit and killed by the fighter pretty easily which is his narrow field of expertise but yes the later the level the more help he needs but magic items solve some of the problems (which I don´t see as outside help).

You recognize that the action economy is powerful... so why would you want to take multiple PCs out of the most dangerous fights for multiple rounds? Because it's not just the casters spending rounds buffing the melee types, it's also the melee types spending those same rounds twiddling their thumbs because they can't do anything effective until they get the buffs. (If they could, whether or not they got those buffs wouldn't be such a big deal. Right? Right.) Meanwhile, the party's opposition is free to spend that time doing whatever, unimpeded - buffing up in turn, or summoning minions, or tossing Save-Or-X spells at the party, or attacking directly, or even just running away.

The "Casters Buff Melee" model is not just inefficient for the casters and insulting to the beatsticks, but actively dangerous to the party as a whole.

[Lans]

Action economy is very powerful. Not having to waste time casting spells on the other guys is good too. See persistent metamagic. The point is that any and all of those buffs could be cast by the wizard ON the wizard. What compelling reason exists to make the fighter the focus of some blase spells when you could be wading into battle and doing it yourself but better?
The fighter has a better base attack bonus, which makes him a better target for polymorph, GMW, GMWallop, and the like. Especially when the spells last 12 hours or a few months like PAO does.

Outside of Shapechange and Alterself I can't really think of any good buff spells that are self only for wizards.

Also the wizard is better off casting spells in combat to kill things than the buff+smash approach. The fewer combat rounds spent on the smashing and buffing by the wizard the better things are going to go.




Magic items are something that ANYONE can have. My wizard will make better use of a +5 Holy Avenger than your fighter will. Similarly, anyone can lose their items. What happens to the fighter if he gets captured or his weapon is sundered? Better hope he spent a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike, because even then he's going to suck until he gets his gear back. Not so for a sorcerer. Not so for a wizard with Eidetic Spellcaster or a cleric.



To be fair he can probably pick up a stick, or has extra weapons on him in the case of the sundering.

Edit-to Philistine-A single buff in combat is about what is most effective action economy wise and should be all thats necessary to make most melee characters effective
Wizard- polymorphs fighter(or warrior/samurai/barbarian) into 12 headed hydra.
Fighter Attacks

[Emmerask]

You recognize that the action economy is powerful... so why would you want to take multiple PCs out of the most dangerous fights for multiple rounds? Because it's not just the casters spending rounds buffing the melee types, it's also the melee types spending those same rounds twiddling their thumbs because they can't do anything effective until they get the buffs. (If they could, whether or not they got those buffs wouldn't be such a big deal. Right? Right.) Meanwhile, the party's opposition is free to spend that time doing whatever, unimpeded - buffing up in turn, or summoning minions, or tossing Save-Or-X spells at the party, or attacking directly, or even just running away.

The "Casters Buff Melee" model is not just inefficient for the casters and insulting to the beatsticks, but actively dangerous to the party as a whole.

As I said earlier I´m still not talking about spending multiple rounds during combat for buffing up that would indeed be stupid and dangerous. Proper scouting and then buff the group with what is absolutely needed is the way to go :smallwink:

And don´t forget we are not talking about every single combat here we are talking about those combats where the fighter could not do anything without a fly spell for example, so unless your dm is an ass who actively tries to deny the fighter any kind of fun during the game that will not happen all that often.
If it is the campaigns theme in which a character becomes useless the dms job is to warn players that they might not have fun if they chose that class like a rogue in an undead campaign for example.

[TaintedLight]

The fighter has a better base attack bonus, which makes him a better target for polymorph, GMW, GMWallop, and the like. Especially when the spells last 12 hours or a few months like PAO does.

Outside of Shapechange and Alterself I can't really think of any good buff spells that are self only for wizards.

Also the wizard is better off casting spells in combat to kill things than the buff+smash approach. The fewer combat rounds spent on the smashing and buffing by the wizard the better things are going to go.

With the number of ways that exist to pump caster level and spells like Tenser's Transformation, I greatly much disagree. Ignore the fact that Tenser's takes away the ability to cast spells, because the fighter can't do that anyways. Also, are you really of the opinion that Bite of the X spells are bad? Heart of X? Mirror Image? Put Tenser's on a Contingency and go to town. And again, this does not solve the problem of unsupported obligation to do anything for the fighter. It is entirely within the wizard's purview to decide that the fighter, who has benefited greatly from the wizard's help, has done very little for the wizard other than use his help to be good at one thing. Why, again, is that a good working relationship to have? I get pretty resentful myself when someone takes advantage of my help and doesn't do anything for me in return.


To be fair he can probably pick up a stick, or has extra weapons on him in the case of the sundering.

Edit-to Philistine-A single buff in combat is about what is most effective action economy wise and should be all thats necessary to make most melee characters effective
Wizard- polymorphs fighter(or warrior/samurai/barbarian) into 12 headed hydra.
Fighter Attacks

Wizard Shapechanges into a Chronotyryn and breaks the action economy.

[Drolyt]

While I will agree the Fighter is poorly designed, it has nothing to do with power level. Sure Two-Weapon Fighting and Sword and Board Fighters suck, but there are several Fighter builds that far outclass any non-spellcaster in power because of all those feats. Jack B Quick is rather one of the weaker power builds. If I can figure out where it was posted, there was a build that as long as it won initiative would never let the enemy fight back. Fighter sucks largely for the reasons Fax gave. Unlike Fax, I don't mind a character that can't do anything another class can't. I mean, in any real sense can a Sorcerer do anything a Wizard can't? Cast spells without preparation and access to a handful of Sorcerer only feats? Meh. The problem is that you don't have sufficient ability to customize the Fighter. 10 bonus feats? Big deal, a Sorcerer gets about 4 times that many spells plus a Familiar, plenty of customization to differentiate from both Wizards and other Sorcerers. If you break down a Barbarian or Ranger or especially a ToB class you see they get far more than 10 unique abilities. Sure you don't get to choose them all, but for a Fighter to be really interesting they would need at the least 20 bonus feats and far more interesting feats to choose from.

[TaintedLight]

While I will agree the Fighter is poorly designed, it has nothing to do with power level. Sure Two-Weapon Fighting and Sword and Board Fighters suck, but there are several Fighter builds that far outclass any non-spellcaster in power because of all those feats. Jack B Quick is rather one of the weaker power builds. If I can figure out where it was posted, there was a build that as long as it won initiative would never let the enemy fight back. Fighter sucks largely for the reasons Fax gave. Unlike Fax, I don't mind a character that can't do anything another class can't. I mean, in any real sense can a Sorcerer do anything a Wizard can't? Cast spells without preparation and access to a handful of Sorcerer only feats? Meh. The problem is that you don't have sufficient ability to customize the Fighter. 10 bonus feats? Big deal, a Sorcerer gets about 4 times that many spells plus a Familiar, plenty of customization to differentiate from both Wizards and other Sorcerers. If you break down a Barbarian or Ranger or especially a ToB class you see they get far more than 10 unique abilities. Sure you don't get to choose them all, but for a Fighter to be really interesting they would need at the least 20 bonus feats and far more interesting feats to choose from.

Fighters tend to shoehorn themselves into specific combat roles like tripping or bull rushing from what I've seen. Those tactics simply do not work against things that are really big/multiple legs/incorporeal/etc. Then it's back to the same basic game of whack-a-beast.

As for the difference between wizards and sorcerers, yes, spontaneous spellcasting is different enough from prepared spellcasting. Sorcerers have a fluff and mechanic that is distinct from the wizard method (though it wouldn't hurt to give them some extra distinguishing features. 19 dead levels save familiar advancement is REALLY dull).

If you don't mind playing a class with no unique abilities or capabilities, what compels you to play a fighter over anything else? What makes it a worthwhile inclusion in 3.5 if it does not offer the chance to do something that you cannot already do?

[Drolyt]

Fighters tend to shoehorn themselves into specific combat roles like tripping or bull rushing from what I've seen. Those tactics simply do not work against things that are really big/multiple legs/incorporeal/etc. Then it's back to the same basic game of whack-a-beast.
There are some more advanced tactics for Fighters. They still end up shoehorned, but a properly built Fighter can at least be good at one thing: killing things. Thing is, even if you build him to be good at fighting many people don't think Fighters are any fun. Take another class largely considered underpowered: Warlocks. Warlocks are among the most popular classes in the game.

As for the difference between wizards and sorcerers, yes, spontaneous spellcasting is different enough from prepared spellcasting. Sorcerers have a fluff and mechanic that is distinct from the wizard method (though it wouldn't hurt to give them some extra distinguishing features. 19 dead levels save familiar advancement is REALLY dull).
In the end they use the same abilities though. Sure it is quite different, but my point was that different isn't always what makes a character fun. Both Sorcerers and Wizards get enough distinct abilities to be fun and worthwhile.

If you don't mind playing a class with no unique abilities or capabilities, what compels you to play a fighter over anything else? What makes it a worthwhile inclusion in 3.5 if it does not offer the chance to do something that you cannot already do?
It's not really a worthwhile class as written. It could have been though. The point of a Fighter is customization. Sure none of his abilities are truly unique, but theoretically a given individual Fighter should be unique, just like two Sorcerers can fulfill two completely different roles thus being unique despite not having any spells unique to them. The fact is he isn't. A given Fighter can't do anything but swing his sword and use a few combat maneuvers. A properly built Fighter might be better at swinging his sword or using one or more of the maneuvers everyone else can use, but he doesn't play uniquely.

Edit: I guess my point it I don't mind Fighters not having abilities unique to them. What is stupid is that despite all those feats all Fighters have essentially the same capabilities. That isn't true of say, Sorcerers or Psions or ToB classes, where each character feels individual.

Edit 2: I guess I'm going back on my statement that ToB is less versatile than core. I still think ToB is less versatile than it could be if the fluff were made more general.

Edit 3: As for my use of Oberoni Fallacy in reference to fluff: I have, perhaps wrongly, been operating under the assumption that fluff is not separate from mechanics and would therefore be applicable to the Oberoni Fallacy. I say perhaps wrongly not because I don't believe this is true, but because obviously not everyone is operating from the same assumptions and it was foolish of me to think that.

[TaintedLight]

There are some more advanced tactics for Fighters. They still end up shoehorned, but a properly built Fighter can at least be good at one thing: killing things. Thing is, even if you build him to be good at fighting many people don't think Fighters are any fun. Take another class largely considered underpowered: Warlocks. Warlocks are among the most popular classes in the game.

Warlocks can achieve a surprising level of power through certain exploits and builds. Try a Hellfire Warlock/Binder glaivelock for one example.

And that fighter is still only mediocre at one thing. He can kill certain enemies that are vulnerable to his tactics. Remember the saying "prepare for the worst, hope for the best?" Well, if the worst looks like a fighter who's naked and alone, how will he deal with one piddling allip? The martial adept could use any number of different techniques to defend himself or attack it, not limited to just the Desert Wind fire attacks. A warblade could IHS long enough to run away and find aid. A crusader can heal himself and resist damage. And on and on. Not to mention the fact that manuevers allow a martial adept to set up nearly any situation that a fighter who specializes in a niche tactic could, and the adept has MORE options on top of that. He is not omni-useful, but he is multi-useful.


In the end they use the same abilities though. Sure it is quite different, but my point was that different isn't always what makes a character fun. Both Sorcerers and Wizards get enough distinct abilities to be fun and worthwhile.

Agreeing with you here.


It's not really a worthwhile class as written. It could have been though. The point of a Fighter is customization. Sure none of his abilities are truly unique, but theoretically a given individual Fighter should be unique, just like two Sorcerers can fulfill two completely different roles thus being unique despite not having any spells unique to them. The fact is he isn't. A given Fighter can't do anything but swing his sword and use a few combat maneuvers. A properly built Fighter might be better at swinging his sword or using one or more of the maneuvers everyone else can use, but he doesn't play uniquely.

And this is why fighters are boring and ultimately weak. Somebody else is doing his job better just like you said.

[Lord Raziere]

If people care so much about customization and balance, why don't they just abandon classes altogether?

[TaintedLight]

If people care so much about customization and balance, why don't they just abandon classes altogether?

Because that ultimately obliterates balance. If you have NO guidelines as to what a player should be capable of given so much experience (not experience points, just time spent exposed to something), that ultimately makes for a less definitive guide as to what can happen than a weak set of guidelines.

[Drolyt]

stuff
The only part I disagree with is that I have seen some Fighter builds that aren't mediocre and can defeat almost any opponent. That still doesn't make the class as a whole fun or change the fact that 99% of Fighter builds suck, but I do with to dispel the notion that a level 20 Fighter is doomed to mediocrity. I guess I'm going to have to come up with a build to prove this.

[TaintedLight]

The only part I disagree with is that I have seen some Fighter builds that aren't mediocre and can defeat almost any opponent. That still doesn't make the class as a whole fun or change the fact that 99% of Fighter builds suck, but I do with to dispel the notion that a level 20 Fighter is doomed to mediocrity. I guess I'm going to have to come up with a build to prove this.

By all means, I am open to evidence that points to the contrary. If you demonstrate to me how a 20th level fighter can achieve battle supremacy in a way that a martial adept or any other non-caster (including half casters like paladins) cannot, I will acknowledge your point.

[Lord Raziere]

Because that ultimately obliterates balance. If you have NO guidelines as to what a player should be capable of given so much experience (not experience points, just time spent exposed to something), that ultimately makes for a less definitive guide as to what can happen than a weak set of guidelines.

oh and is 3.5 really that "balanced"? I was under the impression that the classes
lived in an unbending caste system with wizards and clerics at the top and samurais and truenamers at the bottom and that when you die, you reincarnate according to this mysterious force called "optimization" which weighs your good deeds and bad deeds and the more optimized you become, the more likely you are to reincarnate as a higher caste and the less optimized you are the more likely you are to reincarnate as lower caste, and Tome of Battle allows you to escape from the endless cycle of reincarnation. :smallbiggrin:

[TaintedLight]

oh and is 3.5 really that "balanced"? I was under the impression that the classes
lived in an unbending caste system with wizards and clerics at the top and samurais and truenamers at the bottom and that when you die, you reincarnate according to this mysterious force called "optimization" which weighs your good deeds and bad deeds and the more optimized you become, the more likely you are to reincarnate as a higher caste and the less optimized you are the more likely you are to reincarnate as lower caste, and Tome of Battle allows you to escape from the endless cycle of reincarnation. :smallbiggrin:

No. 3.5 is not well balanced. It is, however, partially balanced. This is better than full abstraction for the purposes of roleplaying. Full abstraction is better for cooperative storytelling, and that is totally cool if it is what your group is into.

[Lord Raziere]

No. 3.5 is not well balanced. It is, however, partially balanced. This is better than full abstraction for the purposes of roleplaying. Full abstraction is better for cooperative storytelling, and that is totally cool if it is what your group is into.

Then why don't you just balance it? Use common sense, just houserule and homebrew it. I have no idea why people argue over this when there are obvious answers right in front of them.

[DeltaEmil]

Because not everybody knows what is balanced, or how it should be balanced, and they come here to discuss about perceived problems, ask for the other's experience in how to deal with that problem, ask if the proposed balance check is really balanced and good, and other stuff...

Not everyone sees obvious answers...

[TaintedLight]

Then why don't you just balance it? Use common sense, just houserule and homebrew it. I have no idea why people argue over this when there are obvious answers right in front of them.

Not everyone agrees on the best houserules and homebrews to achieve that goal. That's exactly why discussions like this emerge. Some people think certain aspects of the game are overpowered, others think those same aspects are perfectly fine, and yet others find them weak. Each makes their own rules to suit their preferences.

[Lord Raziere]

ah I see. :smallfrown: NOW I know why you argue, that's a perfectly good reason.

well, whatevs. can't stop Individual Factor: at some point, everyone has their own opinion.

My opinion? make warriors awesome ala greek heroes, they knew no magic they were just awesome enough to do things because they could. Exhibit A: Hercules/Herakles holding up the world :smallcool:

[Coidzor]

oh and is 3.5 really that "balanced"? I was under the impression that the classes
lived in an unbending caste system with wizards and clerics at the top and samurais and truenamers at the bottom and that when you die, you reincarnate according to this mysterious force called "optimization" which weighs your good deeds and bad deeds and the more optimized you become, the more likely you are to reincarnate as a higher caste and the less optimized you are the more likely you are to reincarnate as lower caste, and Tome of Battle allows you to escape from the endless cycle of reincarnation. :smallbiggrin:

I'm almost tempted to do some world-genning with that in mind as a gag for a religion...

[Lord Raziere]

I'm almost tempted to do some world-genning with that in mind as a gag for a religion...

to further the satirical society you'd have Pun-Pun rule as God-Emperor of 3.5kind, he would appear as a Kobold version of Dr.Manhattan. :smallbiggrin:

[TaintedLight]

This is exactly why ToB is a good thing. Iron Heart Surge for Pun Pun.

[Coidzor]

to further the satirical society you'd have Pun-Pun rule as God-Emperor of 3.5kind, he would appear as a Kobold version of Dr.Manhattan. :smallbiggrin:

...So does that mean he'd be, what, glowing orange and not like to wear pants?

...That doesn't sound very different from most kobolds, come to think of it, aside from the glowing, anyway...

[Lord Raziere]

...So does that mean he'd be, what, glowing orange and not like to wear pants?

...That doesn't sound very different from most kobolds, come to think of it, aside from the glowing, anyway...

no he'd be blue, I said kobold version of doctor manhattan remember? the joke doesn't work if he ain't blue.

and 4E would be like communist russia, they would refer to each other as "comrade" and believe "Mother 4E will guide us to our Epic Destiny!" they would legions of Heroic Legions who would commanded by Paragons. 4E players would all look the same with only slight differences between them to satirize how everyone says how 4E classes all looks the same- complete with those 50's suburbia houses lined up everywhere going on for miles and miles.

......that joke too soon?

[Lans]

With the number of ways that exist to pump caster level and spells like Tenser's Transformation, I greatly much disagree. Ignore the fact that Tenser's takes away the ability to cast spells, because the fighter can't do that anyways.


Why are we ignoring that? We're not discussing wizard vs fighter we are discussing wether its better to buff the wizard or fighter. A caster and one buffed out fighter is going to be better than a slightly better buffed out fighter and a fighter.


Also, are you really of the opinion that Bite of the X spells are bad? Heart of X? Mirror Image? Put Tenser's on a Contingency and go to town. And again, this does not solve the problem of unsupported obligation to do anything for the fighter. It is entirely within the wizard's purview to decide that the fighter, who has benefited greatly from the wizard's help, has done very little for the wizard other than use his help to be good at one thing. Why, again, is that a good working relationship to have? I get pretty resentful myself when someone takes advantage of my help and doesn't do anything for me in return.
Heart of spells don't help melee ablity much, neither does mirror image. Tensers just means that both you and the fighter get put into forcages that you probably can't get out of.





Wizard Shapechanges into a Chronotyryn and breaks the action economy.
If the wizard could Shapechange he would have PAOed the fighter a year ago.

[Gnaeus]

The only part I disagree with is that I have seen some Fighter builds that aren't mediocre and can defeat almost any opponent. That still doesn't make the class as a whole fun or change the fact that 99% of Fighter builds suck, but I do with to dispel the notion that a level 20 Fighter is doomed to mediocrity. I guess I'm going to have to come up with a build to prove this.

I agree with you that not all fighter builds suck. This is where the Tier system becomes relevant.

Fighters, by default, are tier 5. Not really good at anything.

A super-fighter build that does absurd damage, like an ubercharger, or something else with an awesome combat trick, moves all the way up to tier 4. Really good at one narrow focus, but obsolete if his one trick is blocked. Such a fighter is relevant in any combat (in which he can use his trick). He is still irrelevant in anything that isn't combat. He can usually contribute in a tier 3 group, as their combat specialist, helping them win fights while they carry him through non-combat encounters (characters are generally relevant in a party with a 1 tier variance). Even here the tier 3 casters can make him obsolete.

He is not remotely relevant to an equivalently optimized tier 1-2 group, where anyone else can make fighters, summon fighters, or mind-control fighters into doing their bidding. Yes, he may be better than any one of their summoned/created fighters, but the caster can always summon more, they are completely disposable and they don't demand an equal share of the loot.

[Aotrs Commander]

In my own style of game paradigm (which consists of MUCH larger encounters than is typical for 3.5, and primarily classed humanoid enemies to boot), I've found that there is still a place for Fighter (and Monk) even in the post-Tob Enviroment. It has, however, necessitated shoring up the lower tier classes somewhat. Fighters, for example, now get a feat every level; and those they gain at what would be dead levels can be ANY type of feat. They also get special "must actually have levels of Fighter, not count as Fighter" special bonuses to some feats as well. (E.g., Improved Critical, a character with at least 8 levels of fighter gets to stack it with Keen; and like one of the early posters, I allow Fighters to take Martial Study and Martial Stance as much as they like). (We also make a few other conceits, like TWF has always got the benefit of full strength on the off-hand.)

It's surprising the amount of difference that actually makes. At the lowly level of 8, specialist Kobold archers armed with masterwork composite longbows were still enough of a threat to worry the party, which was level 16. (Now, though, due to insanely over-equipping, the party's fighter's and monk's AC are in the 40s...) The now-18th level fighter is an absolute terror, and the monk (thanks to my latest round of upgrades) is getting there. At the very least, it can give you another set of tricks. (I've yet to try really exploiting this and going outside the mundane fighter feat theme with something like Hidden Talent at level 1 and then a combination of martial and psionc feats to see what you really could do!)

Notably, though, the enemies (often more numerous enemies) often want to close to full attack range as well, so the oft-touted problem of not being able to get within full-attack range is not very much in evidence. (And the wizard is as often as not either killing some of the mooks or has his hands full dealing with the enemy wizards to dominate the encounter. And any fight that isn't just a throwaway does have full spellcaster support in my games). Also archers. Sodding everywhere.

So, fighters can still contribute, even with Tob in use, AT OUR PARTICULAR PARADIGM. AND this has required some effort in making adjustments. Out of the box, Warblade is still better than a Core fighter for pretty much anything except archery, disregarding equipment or support from other characters. Whether than "better" constitutes "better" like wizard>sorcerer or cleric/druid>everyone (i.e. still playable) or "better" as in "is not rendered unable to contribute" depends of the paradigm of the adventures in question, the level of skill on the part of PC (and/or NPC) spell casting and number and type of opposition.

And all that said, some people do like the simplicity of making full attacks, rather than having to choose and use manouvers. Not everyone, but some people do. (And trust me, when you're sometimes running 20-50 creatures in a combat, the DM does as well!)

[thompur]

Fighters are overpowered... which I will demonstrate with a simple Logic Proof

An unoptimized fighter can kill a kobold.
Pun-Pun is a kobold.
Therefore, an unoptimized fighter can kill Pun-Pun.

Case closed.


This message brought to you by the

"God is Love,
Love is Blind,
Ray Charles is Blind,
Therefore, Ray Charles is God."

School of logical thought.


Have a nice day.:smallsmile:

[DragoonWraith]

While I will agree the Fighter is poorly designed, it has nothing to do with power level. Sure Two-Weapon Fighting and Sword and Board Fighters suck, but there are several Fighter builds that far outclass any non-spellcaster in power because of all those feats. Jack B Quick is rather one of the weaker power builds. If I can figure out where it was posted, there was a build that as long as it won initiative would never let the enemy fight back.
I'd love for you to post some of these builds, because I'm rather certain they don't exist. Jack B. Quick is amusing, but A. he's better done as a PsyWar, and B. he is still having problems with the usual suspects (flight, battlefield control, non-combat encounters, etc).

As with most non-Psionic/non-ToB/non-MoI martial builds, even the optimized ones, the best you can say is that he's good at killing things. Utility doesn't exist for those classes, most of the time. Can a Fighter or Barbarian out-damage a Warblade? Certainly. But the Fighter or Barbarian is going to become very reliant on the battlefield shaping up to match their strengths. The advantage of the Warblade is that to a greater extent, he can adapt to meet the battle.

[Ashiel]

Speaking of Sword & Board and Two Weapon Fighting; this is another reason I like the Warblade or even Crusader. Unlike traditional PHB Fighters, they can actually make solid use of 2 handed, sword & board, or dual-wielding right out of the box without gimping themselves. It's not that they do it better than everyone else; merely that they do it well.

Between levels 1-3, warblades have access to maneuvers (which they can pick, like bonus feats and retrain for free when they level if they don't like their pick) which allow you to move and attack with both weapons, or inflict extra damage from your class and skill, or even interject yourself and your shield to protect an ally.

Since many of the warblade strikes deal extra damage based on their class instead of their weapon, it allows them to be dangerous wielding a 1 handed weapon, or even unarmed. Many of them come with extra effects to boot; such as tripping or ignoring hardness.

So while you can overspecialize a few things as a fighter, you could be a warblade and actually do what the PHB fluff for the fighter says; allowing you to be proficient in multiple combat forms.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'd love for you to post some of these builds, because I'm rather certain they don't exist. Jack B. Quick is amusing, but A. he's better done as a PsyWar, and B. he is still having problems with the usual suspects (flight, battlefield control, non-combat encounters, etc).

To be fair to fighters, neither warblades nor crusaders (nor paladins nor monks, knights, dragon shamans etc etc) are particularly good at fighting flying opponents, unless they are either relying on magic items (which becomes a non-issue with regard to class) or are some sort of ranged specialist (e.g. PrC class or homebrew ranged schools or something). Swordsages are so-so (since there are some ranged manouvers in Desert Wind and Shadow Hand). Flying problems are more of a caster/noncaster issue.

[DragoonWraith]

They still have something, though - Warblades can also gain those weapon throwing maneuvers, and Crusaders can buff the party even if they're stranded on the ground.

And the other things I listed are probably more important. Flying is a problem, that's true. But Grease doesn't have to be - but for a charger, it really, really is. You'd expect Fighters to have some skills in certain areas - spot and listen for guard work, maybe - but they have an awful list and a pathetic number of points. The martial adepts also fix that issue.

[Gnaeus]

To be fair to fighters, neither warblades nor crusaders (nor paladins nor monks, knights, dragon shamans etc etc) are particularly good at fighting flying opponents, unless they are either relying on magic items (which becomes a non-issue with regard to class) or are some sort of ranged specialist (e.g. PrC class or homebrew ranged schools or something). Swordsages are so-so (since there are some ranged manouvers in Desert Wind and Shadow Hand). Flying problems are more of a caster/noncaster issue.

A warblade with a single feat (adaptive style) can take white raven tactics. He can stand beside the (Wizard/cleric/archer/character most useful in that particular battle). Every round he delays his initiative to after his friend, gives his friend an extra entire turn with WRT, and then takes a full round action to recover his maneuvers. That single trick, available to him at level 5, is more flexible than anything the fighter gets in 20 levels of feats, because it lets the warblade contribute meaningfully in any fight in which any of his allies is effective. (A swordsage can duplicate it at level 10, a crusader can do it at level 5 but not as well as the warblade).

That is only 1 trick (and it uses very few resources, 1 feat + 1 maneuver). A well built martial adapt will have several and the ability to pick the most effective trick to use in a given fight. The fighter will have 1 trick, and will be unable to change it if it isn't working for him.

[Ashiel]

To be fair to fighters, neither warblades nor crusaders (nor paladins nor monks, knights, dragon shamans etc etc) are particularly good at fighting flying opponents, unless they are either relying on magic items (which becomes a non-issue with regard to class) or are some sort of ranged specialist (e.g. PrC class or homebrew ranged schools or something). Swordsages are so-so (since there are some ranged manouvers in Desert Wind and Shadow Hand). Flying problems are more of a caster/noncaster issue.

I've never understood the "omg teh flying" mentality. PCs have access to flight by as early as 5th level if their party has a caster or anyone with UMD. By 8th level, flying is trivial, as you can easily purchase a few potions of fly for rainy days (since you probably won't be fighting flying enemies constantly); and there are tons of ways to achieve flight from core magic items; like Celestial Armor, Cloak of the Bat, Boots of Flying, Horseshoes of the Zypher, a flying mount, a magic carpet, a magic broom, a or even a generic x/day item that casts fly or overland flight on you at higher levels.

Even then, unless you're talking really, really high opponents, ranged attacks aren't horribly ineffective most of the time. A single oil of magic weapon ensures a hour of +1 magic arrows, bullets, or rocks flung from a bow or sling.

If you want to get tricky, many warriors can make use of Nets without proficiency by virtue of their high BAB. While not the optimum solution, netting a flying opponent will usually yield a land-bound opponent; but this usually requires the opponent to be coming in low, or for a flyby attack.

[Gnaeus]

I've never understood the "omg teh flying" mentality. PCs have access to flight by as early as 5th level if their party has a caster or anyone with UMD. By 8th level, flying is trivial, as you can easily purchase a few potions of fly for rainy days (since you probably won't be fighting flying enemies constantly); and there are tons of ways to achieve flight from core magic items; like Celestial Armor, Cloak of the Bat, Boots of Flying, Horseshoes of the Zypher, a flying mount, a magic carpet, a magic broom, a or even a generic x/day item that casts fly or overland flight on you at higher levels.

1. If your campaign doesn't let you buy the gear you want, and your caster's aren't crafters, you are screwed.

2. If you lack your gear, you are screwed.

3. If the enemy casts disjunction, or even dispel magic, you are screwed. Most of those items are CL pitiful.

4. In this case, to a degree, fly is shorthand for the range of encounters that the muggle cannot contribute to/escape from without specialized equipment. It could just as easily be huge grapplers, incorporeals, things with unbeatable DR nearly equal to his average weapon damage, things with unhittable AC, underwater fights, swarms, enemies he can't find, etc.....

A well built tier 3 is likely to have inherent methods for dealing with many/most of those things, without resorting to specialized gear.



Even then, unless you're talking really, really high opponents, ranged attacks aren't horribly ineffective most of the time. A single oil of magic weapon ensures a hour of +1 magic arrows, bullets, or rocks flung from a bow or sling.

1. Things like wind wall don't care if your weapon is magic.
2. If you aren't specialized in ranged attacks, the damage your muggle can do with a bow is likely to be inconsequential to CR appropriate enemies. It isn't enough to do damage, you have to do enough damage that you can drop opponents.

[Aotrs Commander]

A warblade with a single feat (adaptive style) can take white raven tactics. He can stand beside the (Wizard/cleric/archer/character most useful in that particular battle). Every round he delays his initiative to after his friend, gives his friend an extra entire turn with WRT, and then takes a full round action to recover his maneuvers. That single trick, available to him at level 5, is more flexible than anything the fighter gets in 20 levels of feats, because it lets the warblade contribute meaningfully in any fight in which any of his allies is effective. (A swordsage can duplicate it at level 10, a crusader can do it at level 5 but not as well as the warblade).

Okay, granted. A warblade who has got WRT can do that (though not all warblades will, of course.)

On the flip side, it's not a very interesting option for you, the warblade's player. I think the fighter (slash crusade slash paladin slash anyone with amrtial ranged weapon proficiencies) using his little-used composite longbow would probably be more entertaining than going "Dude. Your turn again" for several rounds.

I'll grant you, it's certainly a contribution to the combat and the party. It's arguably be the most optimal action the WRT user can do PERIOD, in any given combat situation, since you can use it to give your caster friends more than one action every round, while you stand and cheerlead (or possible and a standard or full attack action). But you're back to "okay, you know what I'm doing on my turn, I'm goin' to the bog."

Crusaders at least have the option of doing that or making a full attack with a bow.

But I'd not really thought of it in that fashion before. I'm so going to have the BBEG wizards backed up with a squad1 of cheerleading Warblades...


They still have something, though - Warblades can also gain those weapon throwing maneuvers, and Crusaders can buff the party even if they're stranded on the ground.

Actually, I think Warbaldes are the most shafted out of all the melee type classes when it comes to flying combat, since in order to anything aside from lob a dagger or something once per round, they actually have to spent a feat or something to be able to do anything else apart from cheerlead (and only then IF they happen to have chosen any White Raven manouvers, which not all warblades will.) Any crusader, paladin, fighter, dragon shaman (etc) can at least pick up a bow any shoot.


1. Things like wind wall don't care if your weapon is magic.

Wind Wall specifically is also not a problem when fighting flying enemies, since a) it has to be on the ground and b) is stationary. You would have been more accurate by saying Greater Ironguard or Reverse Arrows as absolute protections; as even Stoneskin can be whittled away.

But that's right back to caster-v noncaster again.


I've never understood the "omg teh flying" mentality. PCs have access to flight by as early as 5th level if their party has a caster or anyone with UMD. By 8th level, flying is trivial, as you can easily purchase a few potions of fly for rainy days (since you probably won't be fighting flying enemies constantly); and there are tons of ways to achieve flight from core magic items; like Celestial Armor, Cloak of the Bat, Boots of Flying, Horseshoes of the Zypher, a flying mount, a magic carpet, a magic broom, a or even a generic x/day item that casts fly or overland flight on you at higher levels.

Equipment is a moot point when debating class mechanics and capabilities, since it's the great leveller. ANYONE can use it, so it remains an equal option for all classes (or at least all non-casters and many caster classes).



Still, the flying issue is only a fairly minor one, as has been stated, that can be circumnavigated with comparative ease. Nevertheless, it is still one area where the warblade doesn't actually totally dominate.



1Yes, even though I have errata'd WRT to not work on yourself and only once per character per round. You have the squad for redunancy!

[Ashiel]

1. If your campaign doesn't let you buy the gear you want, and your caster's aren't crafters, you are screwed.

2. If you lack your gear, you are screwed.

3. If the enemy casts disjunction, or even dispel magic, you are screwed. Most of those items are CL pitiful.

4. In this case, to a degree, fly is shorthand for the range of encounters that the muggle cannot contribute to/escape from without specialized equipment. It could just as easily be huge grapplers, incorporeals, things with unbeatable DR nearly equal to his average weapon damage, things with unhittable AC, underwater fights, swarms, enemies he can't find, etc.....

A well built tier 3 is likely to have inherent methods for dealing with many/most of those things, without resorting to specialized gear.

1: If your campaign is following the rules of the game, then you do. Otherwise, it's your GM's responsibility to adjust accordingly.

2: This applies to almost everyone. If a class has its tools removed, then it's more difficult. This is like the argument that "monks are great because they can fight nekkid". In a normal game, this isn't the case.

3: If the enemy casts Disjunction, you're screwed no matter who you are. The spell is broken, and I prefer the Pathfinder version (you can humorously disjoin a disjunction effect).

If it's dispel magic you're worried about, then you can likely do the same. In the case of equipment, the dispel magic (if successful) is a 1d4 round debuff; which sucks but likely isn't the end of the world.

4: That's the same for anything. Monsters with lots of HD are often nearly immune to all of the worst save or die spells by virtue of naturally high saves + good ability scores. Monsters with lots of HD and spell resistance (generally tied to HD) suck too. Fighting monsters in the water sucks. Fighting monsters in the air sucks. Fighting monsters with damage reduction sucks. Fighting monsters with energy resistance sucks. Fighting monsters with blindsight, blindsense, scent, tremorsense, incorporeality, touch attacks, poison, disease, energy drain, ability damage, ability drain sucks.

Fighting monsters/enemies sucks.

Now the question is, do you really expect the vast majority of the encounters to be underwater, or in the air, and so on? Not even the wizard is guaranteed to have the answer to all these things.

5: When I'm talking, I'm talking about the game as it's written. I tend to have the fewest problems when I run it that way (as far as magic items go, but I prefer the Pathfinder method). If in your world magic items are so rare that there is no market value or trade of them, then that is your fault and you need to adjust accordingly. You cannot tip the scale without offering a counterweight somewhere else.

[Oslecamo]

A well built tier 3 is likely to have inherent methods for dealing with many/most of those things, without resorting to specialized gear.


False. A pure warblade whitout homebrew is even worst against flying oponents than a fighter (thrown weapons only go so far compared to bows), also has no area damage to deal with swarms, is basically screwed against super-grapplers and incorporeal oponents (you would have to dip the supernatural schools for that, wich the warblade doesn't have easier acess than the fighter). Unbeatable DR can simply be overcome by hiting it harder, and everybody knows that monster AC scales slower than to hit bonus. If the monster has 1000 AC then it may just as well have 500 touch AC and then the warblade can't touch him either with touch attack maneuvers.

[Ashiel]

Equipment is a moot point when debating class mechanics and capabilities, since it's the great leveller. ANYONE can use it, so it remains an equal option for all classes (or at least all non-casters and many caster classes).

Only when it is taken out of context. The DMG discusses availability based on level; and even says that with a higher character level you can gain access to more things even if it's not something your character can do themselves.

If the hallmark of a good class is being able to have the perfect answer to every situation all of the time (something that even wizards rarely do in play, at least not easily), then I don't really want to see a good class.

When I'm playing my 3rd level Paladin of Wee Jass in Pathfinder, I invest in a few cheap magic items to round out her abilities. These magic items are chosen for emergencies or to deal with specific threats or situations. Here's a list of her current magic items.


Potion of Shield x2
Potion of Enlarge Person x2
Wand of Resistance x 7 charges
Wand of Bless x 6 charges
Wand of Magic Weapon 2/day
Wand of Protection from Evil x 5 charges
Wand of Stabilize x 5 charges
Potion of Stabilize x 2
MW (Stealth) Cloak of Resistance +1


And a lot of masterwork tools.
All of these items are available in small communities; with none of the potions being more than 50gp in value (enlarge person potion is CL 1 = 10 rounds). Because Paladins have Magic Weapon on their class list, I picked up a 2/day wand of magic weapon for 300gp instead of upgrading to a +1 weapon; since I can use it to enchant any of my weapons for 1 hour per charge (later I may upgrade it).

Currently her tactics when dealing with flying opponents is run and shoot. In a few levels, it'll probably be the same with the option to take the fight into the air if needed.

The Paladin (http://www.dndsheets.net/view.php?id=3759) if you want to see her. She's built using 25 Pathfinder Point buy, and starting HD HP doubled (so you begin with 20 HP as a paladin before constitution modifiers). Her low constitution is plot related, and I intend to have her become an arch-lich sometime around 15th level (when her CL is 11th); which in Pathfinder will allow her to apply Charisma to HP and Fortitude saves.

[Gnaeus]

False. A pure warblade whitout homebrew is even worst against flying oponents than a fighter (thrown weapons only go so far compared to bows, also has no area damage to deal with swarms, is basically screwed against super-grapplers and incorporeal oponents (you would have to dip the supernatural schools for that, wich the warblade doesn't have easier acess than the fighter).

A warblade with any useful party member can use WRT to make his action as effective as the most effective guy in his party.

Warblades don't have easier access to supernatural schools than the fighter, but unlike the fighter, a warblade can recover his maneuvers during combat, and thus use his trick multiple times. Thus, warblades CAN fly, do elemental damage, etc, teleport through shadows, etc. A fighter can do those things, once. A warblade can do them every other round, or every round in some cases.


Unbeatable DR can simply be overcome by hiting it harder, and everybody knows that monster AC scales slower than to hit bonus. If the monster has 1000 AC then it may just as well have 500 touch AC and then the warblade can't touch him either with touch attack maneuvers.

Presumably even the fighter was trying to "hit it harder" the first time. The warblade can ignore DR starting at level 3. A fighter who can't do more than a couple damage more than the enemy's DR is effectively useless. Sure, some fighter builds (like chargers) effectively ignore DR, but others (like battlefield controllers or archers) can't , and they can't change their tactics in mid fight.

The monster with 1000 AC may have 500 touch AC, or it may not. That is the good thing about having options. You cycle through them until you find one that works. Fighters can't do that.

By comparison:
Wizard: I turn it to stone
DM: It has unbeatable SR/high fort save
Wizard: I hit it with a SR no spell/target its will save
DM: It is immune to your damage type/high will save
Wizard: I buff the party

Warblade: I run up and smite it
DM: it has AC 1000/unbeatable DR
Warblade: I touch attack/Mountain hammer
DM: It has 500 touch attack
Warblade: I assume a stance that gives bonuses to my allies and WRT the wizard/cleric/whoever is hurting it

Fighter: I run up and smite it
DM: it has AC 1000/unbeatable DR
Fighter: I touch attack for trip/grapple
DM: It has 500 touch attack/it is too many size categories above you/has Str: yes
Fighter: :-(


1: If your campaign is following the rules of the game, then you do. Otherwise, it's your GM's responsibility to adjust accordingly.

Whatever. I won't debate whether it is actually a rule of the game or just a suggestion, but regardless, I have been in more games where the DM restricted equipment than where there were magic marts regularly available to the players. I have never been in a game where there was a caster who wasn't me who took crafting feats and was actively using them to plug the weaknesses of other characters. YMMV. Thats hardly a scientific survey.


2: This applies to almost everyone. If a class has its tools removed, then it's more difficult. This is like the argument that "monks are great because they can fight nekkid". In a normal game, this isn't the case.

Actually, monks are BAD because they are so equipment dependent.

Leaving aside the wizard/archivist, who in an equipment destroying campaign is likely to have backup spellbooks, the high tier classes are remarkably equipment independent. Divine casters just need a holy symbol (which some of them can summon), most arcane casters just need a component pouch, which is cheap, readily available, and can be dropped with a level 1 feat. ToB adepts just need a weapon, not a magic, silver cold iron good weapon, just a quarterstaff or a club lets them do their thing. Only the low tiers really need specialist gear to do their job.


4: That's the same for anything. Monsters with lots of HD are often nearly immune to all of the worst save or die spells by virtue of naturally high saves + good ability scores. Monsters with lots of HD and spell resistance (generally tied to HD) suck too.

See above. The caster/high tier character has many more options as to what to do if their primary attack won't work. If you are confused, check my guide to practical optimization in my sig.


Fighting monsters in the water sucks. Fighting monsters in the air sucks. Fighting monsters with damage reduction sucks. Fighting monsters with energy resistance sucks. Fighting monsters with blindsight, blindsense, scent, tremorsense, incorporeality, touch attacks, poison, disease, energy drain, ability damage, ability drain sucks.

Yes, but some characters have methods for dealing with those things, and some don't. A mid-high level tier 1 can likely handle all of those on any given day. A tier 2-3 can handle most.

[Awnetu]

Thats something Ive been wanting to ask, there are 2 abilities in Tome of battle everyone always mentions as being troublesome. The first is easy, Iron Heart Surge. The second one, Im not quite sure I understand why, is White Raven Tactics. The only way I can see to really break it is to have 2 warblades or crusaders use it on each other until a monster is dead.

What am I missing?

[Gnaeus]

What am I missing?

Most of the abuse I have seen comes from defining yourself as an ally, thus creating potentially infinite loops.

[Mr.Moron]

Most of the abuse I have seen comes from defining yourself as an ally, thus creating potentially infinite loops.


The standard definition of ally generally includes yourself.

That said even without infinite loop shenanigans, White Raven Tactics is insanely good, to the point of being broken. It grants extra actions, which is one of the most powerful class of effects in the game. In many ways it compares favorably to Celerity, a way above the curve 4th-level spell. It's like having a Belt of Battle (12,000gp) at level 5 (WBL 9,000 total), that you can use multiple times per day.

[Aotrs Commander]

A warblade with any useful party member can use WRT to make his action as effective as the most effective guy in his party.

Which says the problem lies with WRT being broken as written (and nearly broken if you errata it to only allow it to work once per round and not on yourself), not the warblade. Also, that logic says that the warblade should really do nothing else but spam WRT to make the most effective character (which, let's face it, is usually one of the casters) optimal effectiveness.


Warblades don't have easier access to supernatural schools than the fighter, but unlike the fighter, a warblade can recover his maneuvers during combat, and thus use his trick multiple times. Thus, warblades CAN fly, do elemental damage, etc, teleport through shadows, etc. A fighter can do those things, once. A warblade can do them every other round, or every round in some cases.

Only if you spend 3-4 feats on them (three for Martial Study and maybe one for adpative style and/or martial stance). Those abilities are Desert Sun and Shadow Hand, which you don't get out of the box. And in order to fly, you need to get an 8th level Desert Wind stance (unless there's a lower level one that lets you fly that I've missed) which requires you to get three other Desert Wind manouvers. (And that only allows you to fly 10' off the ground.) At which point, by the time you've used 3-5 feats, you've used nearly 50% of your available, which I think constitutes "specialisation." A fighter can be a fair (if not great) archer type with Point Blank Shot, Many Shot, Rapid Shot and Greater Rapid Shot. The same three/four feats will take you a fair way up the tripper chain as well. You can build a character to do almost anything in 3.5, but that doesn't mean that every character of that class will be able to do what a single specific build can.

[Awnetu]

The standard definition of ally generally includes yourself.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ally

D&D doesn't change this from what I can tell, looking at the bard entry in the PHB, Inspire Courage goes out of its way to include himself, and Inspire Greatness says in Himself or a single willing ally. Of course, they don't do a good job of being consistent throughout the books with other terms, but that seems a stretch of the term to me.

However, I can see the value of the ability when compared to the belt, interesting that the best skill is available so early for Warblades and Crusaders.

[Mr.Moron]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ally

D&D doesn't change this from what I can tell, looking at the bard entry in the PHB, Inspire Courage goes out of its way to include himself, and Inspire Greatness says in Himself or a single willing ally. Of course, they don't do a good job of being consistent throughout the books with other terms, but that seems a stretch of the term to me.

However, I can see the value of the ability when compared to the belt, interesting that the best skill is available so early for Warblades and Crusaders.

Page 304 of the Players Handbook.

[Ashiel]

Warblades don't have easier access to supernatural schools than the fighter, but unlike the fighter, a warblade can recover his maneuvers during combat, and thus use his trick multiple times. Thus, warblades CAN fly, do elemental damage, etc, teleport through shadows, etc. A fighter can do those things, once. A warblade can do them every other round, or every round in some cases.

Warblades don't do that by default any more than fighters do. Don't talk about things you don't understand like you do. Unless you mean Swordsage; in which case sorry for misunderstanding your typo.


Whatever. I won't debate whether it is actually a rule of the game or just a suggestion, but regardless, I have been in more games where the DM restricted equipment than where there were magic marts regularly available to the players. I have never been in a game where there was a caster who wasn't me who took crafting feats and was actively using them to plug the weaknesses of other characters. YMMV. Thats hardly a scientific survey.

It doesn't have to be a scientific survey. It says in the DMG that characters are expected to be outfitted with appropriate gear, and gives the GP limitations for communities; which most items fall within if your campaign so much as has a large city; and if you can't get the strongest you can get more of the moderate and lesser versions. Survey be damned, I'm talking about the rules.

Also, I don't really care what your casters did. 3.x introduced magic item feats so people can use them. If your casters do not make use of them, then that is there problem. I'm rather fond of Pathfinder because of this (making crafting items simpler, easier, and with no XP drain - and even offering an option for non-casters to craft stuff).

So to reiterate, I quote you again: "I have been in more games where the DM restricted equipment than where there were magic marts regularly available to the players." - To which I say, again, you have to make adjustments instead of complaining about problems you're creating.



Actually, monks are BAD because they are so equipment dependent.

2: This applies to almost everyone. If a class has its tools removed, then it's more difficult. This is like the argument that "monks are great because they can fight nekkid". In a normal game, this isn't the case.


Leaving aside the wizard/archivist, who in an equipment destroying campaign is likely to have backup spellbooks, the high tier classes are remarkably equipment independent. Divine casters just need a holy symbol (which some of them can summon), most arcane casters just need a component pouch, which is cheap, readily available, and can be dropped with a level 1 feat. ToB adepts just need a weapon, not a magic, silver cold iron good weapon, just a quarterstaff or a club lets them do their thing. Only the low tiers really need specialist gear to do their job.

And I haven't argued this once. I never suggested the tiers were wrong, nor that magic items were somehow the holy grail of equalizers. I was speaking about the "flying oh noes" mentality that some people seem to have; and then noted that yes, if you take away all your gear, then you will be far weaker. Yes, some classes suffer more, but then again spellcasters are surprisingly easy to nerf before super-high levels without even going outside of core or using stupid "everything is antimagic" fiats.


See above. The caster/high tier character has many more options as to what to do if their primary attack won't work. If you are confused, check my guide to practical optimization in my sig.

Duh. Hence the higher tier. Versatility + Strength = Tier 1, Strength = Tier 2, Versatility = Tier 3. That's how it generally flows. That being said, I was noting the benefits of emergency preparations; such as investing in a potion of fly for emergencies.

Kind of like how I occasionally carry a net on my warrior-types (particularly at mid-low to mid-high levels) where the touch attack and debuff on the first round is a solid opener; or using chucking acid vials for sneak attack; or purchasing an oil of silence and smearing it on myself (auto-succeed move silently) or a tanglefoot bag before lobbing it on an irritating caster (if I don't run or fly over to hug him proper).

I prefer playing caster types in general, or Warblades, because they do have options (and I lurv me some options). I like tactical, so they appeal to me more than fighters "grog hit you moar".


Yes, but some characters have methods for dealing with those things, and some don't. A mid-high level tier 1 can likely handle all of those on any given day. A tier 2-3 can handle most.

I've had some fairly optimized casters and warriors in plenty of my games. One of the best games I recall was the sweetest around level 18-20; which included no less than 4 full-casters (2 wizards, a sorcerer, and a shugenja) a barbarian, and a warblade. I loved that game because of the amount of tactical stuff that went with it. The barbarian player just wanted to charge (he enjoys simple pleasures), wizard 1 debuffed, wizard 2 generally summoned, buffed, and flesh to stoned enemies, and the shugenja ran battlefield control and tossed mass heal around regularly. The sorcerer? Kobold Lich Sorcerer who turned into dragons with polymorph and ran amoke. Fun times.

Humorously, it was in fact the barbarian and warblade who ensured the victory against the BBEG (since it was a rather large demon, with advanced HD which in turn also gave it some very nice saving throws and spell resistance, fast healing, DR, the works). They defeated him because they were packing a +1 life-drinker great-axe, and inflicting -2 levels per hit is pretty nice.

It was rare that a single encounter was actually solved with one, two, or even all of the casters. I just must be doing something wrong.

[TooManyBadgers]

What am I missing?
Forget targeting yourself. You're the Big Dumb Fighter; your actions aren't what the party cares about. WRT is most powerful when used on stronger party members.

Say the party Wizard goes on initiative count 21, the Warblade goes on initiative count 14 and the Monster [or swarm of baddies, whatever] goes on initiative count 10.

Normally, the Wizard would cast his Spell o'Doom, the Warblade would act, the Monster would act. Rinse, repeat.

With White Raven Tactics, the Wizard casts Spell o'Doom #1, the Warblade Charges/Strikes and uses WRT on the Wizard, the Wizard casts Horrendous Spell o'Doom #2, the Monster does its thing, the Warblade refreshes maneuvers and full attacks/charges, the Wizard casts Spell o'Doom #3, the Monster does its thing, the Warblade delays to initiative count 12, the Wizard casts Spell o'Doom #4, the Warblade activates WRT on the Wizard again and Strikes/Full Attacks/Charges, the Wizard casts Spell o'Doom #5, then the Monster goes. &c.

The result is that without WRT, the Wizard, Warblade and Monster all gain 1 turn per round.
With WRT, the Warblade and Monster gain 1 turn per round, but the Wizard gets 5 in 3 rounds. [Exact details vary by initiative counts, but you get the idea -- the action economy is torn into pieces.]

Since the Wizard's actions are typically the most important thing in a group's success, this is a big deal.

[Awnetu]

Page 304 of the Players Handbook.

"A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to “allies” include yourself." Fair enough.

However, checking the bold part of that versus the text in Tome of Battle, WRT specifies ally, not allies.

Makes sense, I was looking for something more in it, considering when people were talking about it, the conversations included such silly things as Iron Heart Surging the sun away.

[Mr.Moron]

"A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to “allies” include yourself." Fair enough.

However, checking the bold part of that versus the text in Tome of Battle, WRT specifies ally, not allies.

If you really want to get into torturing the language by taking it as strictly applying only the word "allies" and not others "allied creatures", "friendly creatures" etc.., it still fails to disqualify yourself from being an ally. Characters are creatures, and unless they're self-hating they're going to friendly towards themselves. In this case the originator of the effect qualifies as an "ally" due to being a creature that is friendly to themselves. Of course that's very round about and silly. However I'd argue that that excluding the word "ally" and other wording that's equivalent to "allies" depending on the exact phrasing and number of creatures involved is also silly.

[Lord Raziere]

Fighters are overpowered... which I will demonstrate with a simple Logic Proof

An unoptimized fighter can kill a kobold.
Pun-Pun is a kobold.
Therefore, an unoptimized fighter can kill Pun-Pun.

Case closed.


This message brought to you by the

"God is Love,
Love is Blind,
Ray Charles is Blind,
Therefore, Ray Charles is God."

School of logical thought.


Have a nice day.:smallsmile:

:smallsigh: That's not logic, that is a logical fallacy. There is a difference. :smallyuk:

[Demons_eye]

:smallsigh: That's not logic, that is a logical fallacy. There is a difference. :smallyuk:

I believe thats the joke.

[Emmerask]

By comparison:
Wizard: I turn it to stone
DM: It has unbeatable SR/high fort save
Wizard: I hit it with a SR no spell/target its will save
DM: It is immune to your damage type/high will save
Wizard: I buff the party

Warblade: I run up and smite it
DM: it has AC 1000/unbeatable DR
Warblade: I touch attack/Mountain hammer
DM: It has 500 touch attack
Warblade: I assume a stance that gives bonuses to my allies and WRT the wizard/cleric/whoever is hurting it

Fighter: I run up and smite it
DM: it has AC 1000/unbeatable DR
Fighter: I touch attack for trip/grapple
DM: It has 500 touch attack/it is too many size categories above you/has Str: yes
Fighter: :-(

I don´t quite see what this hypothetical not ever happening in a game situation proofs? well except that a dm can be an ass and deny any character its usefulness.
So in the spirit of this:

Wizard: I turn it to stone
DM: It has an epic level antimagic field with range 10.000 miles that ignores all cover and expands into all planes
Wizard: :-(

Warblade: I run up and smite it
DM: it has AC 1000/unbeatable DR
Warblade: I touch attack/Mountain hammer
DM: It has 500 touch attack
Warblade: I assume a stance that gives bonuses to my allies and WRT the ... hmm no one can hurt it or do anything useful at all....
... :-(

[Awnetu]

The idea of the exaggeration was this; if a Wizard hits a snag, he has ways around it, if a warblade hits a snag, he can do other things, typically if the fighter hits a snag, he throws his hands up in frustration and calls it a day.

[Emmerask]

The idea of the exaggeration was this; if a Wizard hits a snag, he has ways around it, if a warblade hits a snag, he can do other things, typically if the fighter hits a snag, he throws his hands up in frustration and calls it a day.

Yes, problem is that this specific situation was engineered to be not solvable and has as little ingame application as the epic antimagic field.
Most not exaggerated problems that actually could happen in a game on the other hand can be solved by a clever player using magic items/items/potions/grafts/umd skill item + wands/scrolls etc etc

[Awnetu]

And that says nothing good about the fighter as a class.

That's like calling monks a solid class because they can use a wand or bum off buffs from a Wizard.

[TaintedLight]

Most not exaggerated problems that actually could happen in a game on the other hand can be solved by a clever player using magic items/items/potions/grafts/umd skill item + wands/scrolls etc etc

None of those objects constitute the player's own abilities. ALL of them replicate spell effects (except for some wondrous items and grafts) that the casters could just as easily (and more cheaply) have used. Equipment is just a bad argument for this kind of thing because its availability varies from game to game and it is available to anyone. That makes it a completely neutral element when it comes to determining viability. The wizard can buff out into a monster with a holy avenger and make the 20th level fighter look like a total punk with his holy avenger.

[Emmerask]

The wizard can buff out into a monster with a holy avenger and make the 20th level fighter look like a total punk with his holy avenger.

How would the wizard do this without power attack, shocktrooper, momentum swing, spring attack etc?
Yes you can replicate one feat with a spell but that is really not enough to do anything worthwhile in melee with buffs you may deal your 40 or so damage / swing while any other character with the proper feats does his 200dmg (with an ubercharger you add an arbitrary number of zeros).

/edit

And not taking into account items for item dependent characters (all melee classes) is like saying mid combat the wizard has no component pouch anymore :smallsmile:

[Awnetu]

Not really, the component pouch doesn't make a fighter or a rogue any better. Magic items can make both groups better.

[TaintedLight]

How would the wizard do this without power attack, shocktrooper, momentum swing, spring attack etc?
Yes you can replicate one feat with a spell but that is really not enough to do anything worthwhile in melee with buffs you may deal your 40 or so damage / swing while any other character with the proper feats does his 200dmg (with an ubercharger you add an arbitrary number of zeros).

/edit

And not taking into account items for item dependent characters (all melee classes) is like saying mid combat the wizard has no component pouch anymore :smallsmile:

Tell me, when are all of those high flying feats and fancy tricks ever necessary to defeat a CR appropriate enemy? The game does not expect you to do 150 damage at 6th level. No CR 6 enemy I can think of that stands on the ground would not be vulnerable to that. And even if we do consider the fighter to be competent at that, it does not address the problem of his narrow field of expertise. That's ALL he can do. How many interesting people do you know who have only one skill that they're worth anything at?

EDIT: Whoospie, typo in there.

[Fax Celestis]

How would the wizard do this without power attack, shocktrooper, momentum swing, spring attack etc?
Yes you can replicate one feat with a spell but that is really not enough to do anything worthwhile in melee with buffs you may deal your 40 or so damage / swing while any other character with the proper feats does his 200dmg (with an ubercharger you add an arbitrary number of zeros).

Bite of the weretiger gives you Power Attack, sirine's grace gives you Weapon Finesse and some other things, bite of the wererat gives you Weapon Finesse, tenser's transformation sets your BAB = CL, enlarge person gives you melee buffs, greater heroism gives you a free fighter feat...

tl;dr spells can give you pretty much any feat or melee bonus you like.

[Roderick_BR]

I blame wotc for brainwashing us into thinking that +2 damage per attack is acceptable for a fighter, while wizards can get away with stopping time and gating in solars. :smallannoyed:

Suddenly, a class gets the ability to deal 8d6 fire damage at lv15 and everyone starts throwing a hissy fit. :smallmad:
That.

You get books with tons of different magic mechanics (spell points, incarnuns, truenames, evocations, etc) and no one bats an eye. Make something for warriors, and people finds all kind of excuses to say it "doesn't feel like D&D".

[Reverent-One]

The game does not expect you to do 150 damage at 6th level. No CR 6 enemy I can think of that stands on the ground would be vulnerable to that.

Then you need to look in the MM, because there are plenty of enemies that are CR 6 or higher that are vulnerable to that.

[Awnetu]

And to beat them in an appropriate challenge requires going to the extremes with an Ubercharger?

[Reverent-One]

And to beat them in an appropriate challenge requires going to the extremes with an Ubercharger?

No, but they're still vulnerable to said Ubercharger.

[Awnetu]

Tell me, when are all of those high flying feats and fancy tricks ever necessary to defeat a CR appropriate enemy? The game does not expect you to do 150 damage at 6th level. No CR 6 enemy I can think of that stands on the ground would be vulnerable to that. And even if we do consider the fighter to be competent at that, it does not address the problem of his narrow field of expertise. That's ALL he can do. How many interesting people do you know who have only one skill that they're worth anything at?

I think he had a mistype somewhere in that. He was arguing that you never need to be an ubercharger to beat those encounters. Well, that and one trick ponies are boring.

[TaintedLight]

I think he had a mistype somewhere in that. He was arguing that you never need to be an ubercharger to beat those encounters. Well, that and one trick ponies are boring.

Ah yes, I did mistype that. Otherwise there be some cognitive dissonance all up in here. Also, agreed that one trick ponies are boring. ESPECIALLY to everyone else at the table.

[thompur]

:smallsigh: That's not logic, that is a logical fallacy. There is a difference. :smallyuk:

THAT'S A JO..I SAY THAT'S A JOKE, SON! YA MISSED IT!! WENT RIGHT PASSED YA!! PAY ATTENTION WHEN I'M TAWKIN' TO YA!! nice boy, but he's got the attention span of an over-ripe grapefruit...:smallwink:

[Drolyt]

That.

You get books with tons of different magic mechanics (spell points, incarnuns, truenames, evocations, etc) and no one bats an eye. Make something for warriors, and people finds all kind of excuses to say it "doesn't feel like D&D".
Actually, the people who don't like ToB because it doesn't feel like D&D typically don't like those either. Psionics seems to get a free pass because it was in previous editions, but whatever. The only people who like those systems but not ToB are, as far as I can tell, the anime haters who associate anything evenly remotely similar to anime with badwrongfun. Beyond that some people simply don't like to use ToB in their groups which isn't the same as those who go on about how horrible it is and how it is ruining D&D.

[TaintedLight]

Actually, the people who don't like ToB because it doesn't feel like D&D typically don't like those either. Psionics seems to get a free pass because it was in previous editions, but whatever. The only people who like those systems but not ToB are, as far as I can tell, the anime haters who associate anything evenly remotely similar to anime with badwrongfun. Beyond that some people simply don't like to use ToB in their groups which isn't the same as those who go on about how horrible it is and how it is ruining D&D.

Is that a statistic that can be supported? This is not meant to be an attack or a challenge to your statement, but I'm curious to know what the numbers really are in a larger sample pool because my groups (at home and at college) have pretty incoherent opinions. I personally like all variant systems but I do harbor some hesitation about the potential brokenness of psionics. My DM loves psionics and dislikes ToB. Another one of my friends likes binders and hates incarnum. He adores ToB because it's a non-spellcaster with some options.

Time to go make a poll...

[Drolyt]

Is that a statistic that can be supported? This is not meant to be an attack or a challenge to your statement, but I'm curious to know what the numbers really are in a larger sample pool because my groups (at home and at college) have pretty incoherent opinions. I personally like all variant systems but I do harbor some hesitation about the potential brokenness of psionics. My DM loves psionics and dislikes ToB. Another one of my friends likes binders and hates incarnum. He adores ToB because it's a non-spellcaster with some options.

Time to go make a poll...
I am not aware of any even remotely scientific studies on the matter, so no I can't really back anything up. I am fairly certain though, that the people who talk about things being "un-D&D" hate all variant systems. As for Psionics, it is as broken as the rest of 3.5 but is generally more balanced than spellcasting.

[DragoonWraith]

I do harbor some hesitation about the potential brokenness of psionics.
An aside, but you're going to get eaten alive for this. Psionics is far less broken than spellcasting, especially without Complete Psionic in play. Seriously, I think you should give Psionics a shot here.

[TaintedLight]

An aside, but you're going to get eaten alive for this. Psionics is far less broken than spellcasting, especially without Complete Psionic in play. Seriously, I think you should give Psionics a shot here.

Oh, it's not that I think the system is cracked in half. I just played in a game that went from 3rd to 13th and one of the other players was a straight human psion. She was generally really useful, no doubt. Great artillery support, good self defense. REALLY good self defense. Like quickening an attack a turn and then readying an action to psionic dimension door. That was intensely frustrating to our DM. I wouldn't have been able to do that nearly as easily or frequently, being a Fighter 2/Wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5. I simply did not have the spell slots to do it. Perhaps it is just an issue of perception (and I'm pretty sure it is), but psionics take less book diving to come up with the really strong stuff like Schism. I fully recognize that spells do more broken things, but it seems to me like it's somehow easier to visualize with psionics. Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't.

[Drolyt]

An aside, but you're going to get eaten alive for this. Psionics is far less broken than spellcasting, especially without Complete Psionic in play. Seriously, I think you should give Psionics a shot here.

I never did understand the hesitation for Psionics. A lot of people apparently open up the book, look at it, and decide it must be unbalanced. I have no idea what goes through their head, but this is damn common. Psionics is actually fairly well designed.

[Volthawk]

Oh, it's not that I think the system is cracked in half. I just played in a game that went from 3rd to 13th and one of the other players was a straight human psion. She was generally really useful, no doubt. Great artillery support, good self defense. REALLY good self defense. Like quickening an attack a turn and then readying an action to psionic dimension door. That was intensely frustrating to our DM. I wouldn't have been able to do that nearly as easily or frequently, being a Fighter 2/Wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5. I simply did not have the spell slots to do it. Perhaps it is just an issue of perception (and I'm pretty sure it is), but psionics take less book diving to come up with the really strong stuff like Schism. I fully recognize that spells do more broken things, but it seems to me like it's somehow easier to visualize with psionics. Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't.

Have to ask, but did you enforce the max pp spent on a power=ML rule?

[TaintedLight]

I never did understand the hesitation for Psionics. A lot of people apparently open up the book, look at it, and decide it must be unbalanced. I have no idea what goes through their head, but this is damn common. Psionics is actually fairly well designed.

Like I said, I don't think it's broken. My playgroup is hesitant about it now because one player's good use of the system (my usual DM, someone else took the seat this time around) created a perception in their minds that something was unbalanced because that player was untouchable and doing a lot of damage. Poor encounter design? Maybe. Poor play on the part of the other players? Also maybe. But perception matters a lot. If someone doesn't understand why something is not broken or does not want to play a high tier character like a wizard, psionics looks crazy good. I'd allow it in one of my games, but I need to understand all of the implications of the system better before I do that.

Also, is a psion//psywar gestalt as insane as it looks at first blush?

EDIT: Of course we enforced that rule. The DM initially worried about big gun syndrome and wanted to ban psionics before we showed him that.

[Drolyt]

Like I said, I don't think it's broken. My playgroup is hesitant about it now because one player's good use of the system (my usual DM, someone else took the seat this time around) created a perception in their minds that something was unbalanced because that player was untouchable and doing a lot of damage. Poor encounter design? Maybe. Poor play on the part of the other players? Also maybe. But perception matters a lot. If someone doesn't understand why something is not broken or does not want to play a high tier character like a wizard, psionics looks crazy good. I'd allow it in one of my games, but I need to understand all of the implications of the system better before I do that.
I'd say it was rather that the Psion was played really well. Although, I must say that if you are playing an Abjurant Champion and the Psion was the untouchable one, you were probably playing suboptimally.

Also, is a psion//psywar gestalt as insane as it looks at first blush?
No? Psionic gestalts are particularly attractive due to their ability to pool points, but Psion//Wilder would be much more powerful.

EDIT: Of course we enforced that rule. The DM initially worried about big gun syndrome and wanted to ban psionics before we showed him that.
See, I didn't mean to imply you did this, but a lot of people just look at Psionics and decide it is unbalanced without playing it. I'm not sure what about Psionics looks so unbalanced, and I'm curious.

[TaintedLight]

I'd say it was rather that the Psion was played really well. Although, I must say that if you are playing an Abjurant Champion and the Psion was the untouchable one, you were probably playing suboptimally.

I did kind of make it my job to wade into melee with Greater Mighty Wallop on. Between my Ring of Protection, Dex, Greater Luminous Armor, and Shield, I had AC 40. And the monsters hit me regularly. This was not an optimized campaign, I just liked the class abilities of the Abjurant Champion and saw excellent synergy with Shield and GLA and went with it.


No? Psionic gestalts are particularly attractive due to their ability to pool points, but Psion//Wilder would be much more powerful.

But what about total ML? Isn't it equal to your levels in all manifesting classes? If so, wouldn't you end up with Psion 20 + Psywar 20 = ML 40? Maybe my reading of the rule is off...


See, I didn't mean to imply you did this, but a lot of people just look at Psionics and decide it is unbalanced without playing it. I'm not sure what about Psionics looks so unbalanced, and I'm curious.

I suspect Big Gun Syndrome is their first concern, but beyond that the psion has things like Schism that just make it really easy to gain a big power boost. It's very sleek and attractive compared to the jumbled mess of splatbooks that wizards often come out of, even if it is less powerful.

[thompur]

When I DM, I don't allow psionics. Not for power reasons, but that I'm not too familiar with the system, and...well... for my world...they're just too Science Fictiony.(wait for it...)

[TooManyBadgers]

But what about total ML? Isn't it equal to your levels in all manifesting classes? If so, wouldn't you end up with Psion 20 + Psywar 20 = ML 40? Maybe my reading of the rule is off...
Yeah, that's against both psionics and gestalt rules.

And PP advancement probably doesn't stack either (though I doubt any group wouldn't let you, just for common sense's sake).

[TaintedLight]

Yeah, that's against both psionics and gestalt rules.

And PP advancement probably doesn't stack either (though I doubt any group wouldn't let you, just for common sense's sake).

Huh, I wonder where I saw that paragraph then. Looks like I read it wrong, because I thought manifester level was equal to ML 1 + ML 2 + ...

EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered one of the reasons that our table was uncomfortable with psionics after that game: Augmentation. The fact that so many powers allow you to augment your DC WHILE augmenting the number of damage dice and the like was a big hair-raiser for them. While the Psion was forcing DC 24 saves at 9th level, neither I nor the rogue/wizard/modified arcane trickster could force over a 20 on a good day.

[Drolyt]

Huh, I wonder where I saw that paragraph then. Looks like I read it wrong, because I thought manifester level was equal to ML 1 + ML 2 + ...

EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered one of the reasons that our table was uncomfortable with psionics after that game: Augmentation. The fact that so many powers allow you to augment your DC WHILE augmenting the number of damage dice and the like was a big hair-raiser for them. While the Psion was forcing DC 24 saves at 9th level, neither I nor the rogue/wizard/modified arcane trickster could force over a 20 on a good day.

Forgive my memory, but isn't your manifestor level a hard limit on the number of PP you can use? So you can augment better damage, or something else, or add a metapsionic feat, or mix it up, but you can never spend more pp than your level, or am I wrong?

[Fax Celestis]

Forgive my memory, but isn't your manifestor level a hard limit on the number of PP you can use? So you can augment better damage, or something else, or add a metapsionic feat, or mix it up, but you can never spend more pp than your level, or am I wrong?

Correct, barring feats or class features that explicitly increase that cap (like the Wilder's surge).

[Knaight]

EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered one of the reasons that our table was uncomfortable with psionics after that game: Augmentation. The fact that so many powers allow you to augment your DC WHILE augmenting the number of damage dice and the like was a big hair-raiser for them. While the Psion was forcing DC 24 saves at 9th level, neither I nor the rogue/wizard/modified arcane trickster could force over a 20 on a good day.

Sure, but the wizard autoscales damage. A 10th level wizard casting fireball gets more power than a 5th level wizard casting fireball, while still using the same slot, a Psion would have to pay for any damage increase.

[TaintedLight]

Forgive my memory, but isn't your manifestor level a hard limit on the number of PP you can use? So you can augment better damage, or something else, or add a metapsionic feat, or mix it up, but you can never spend more pp than your level, or am I wrong?

Yes, this is the case. Consider a power like Energy Bolt. It starts at 5d6 and costs 5 power points. This is pretty much the equivalent of a 5th level wizard's lightning bolt. While the wizard doesn't have to do anything special to power that bolt up as he levels, he also can't boost the save DC by using extra spell slots (in any way that I am familiar with). At 9th level, for a wizard and a psion of the same INT, the save DC is 13+INT for the wizard and 13+(.5*augments)+INT for the psion. He could theoretically boost it to 9d6 of any energy type, which is a level of versatility that counts for something. The final statistics, assuming augmentation all the way up, are 9d6 for each and saves of 13+INT versus 15+INT (or more if the psion chooses electricity). Also, the psion can target different saves. That really helps against a wide range of enemies.

EDIT: Burning 9 power points is like a 5th level spell. Is there a 5th level spell that does 9d6 energy of any type?

[tonberrian]

EDIT: Burning 9 power points is like a 5th level spell. Is there a 5th level spell that does 9d6 energy of any type?

Cone of Cold plus Energy Substitution.

And a Wizard can Heighten a damage spell to improve the Save DC. Metamagic is much more forgiving than Metapsionics, because all Metapsionic feats require giving up your psionic focus, and you can only hold one of those at a time, barring certain combinations of feats.

[Sucrose]

Yes, this is the case. Consider a power like Energy Bolt. It starts at 5d6 and costs 5 power points. This is pretty much the equivalent of a 5th level wizard's lightning bolt. While the wizard doesn't have to do anything special to power that bolt up as he levels, he also can't boost the save DC by using extra spell slots (in any way that I am familiar with). At 9th level, for a wizard and a psion of the same INT, the save DC is 13+INT for the wizard and 13+(.5*augments)+INT for the psion. He could theoretically boost it to 9d6 of any energy type, which is a level of versatility that counts for something. The final statistics, assuming augmentation all the way up, are 9d6 for each and saves of 13+INT versus 15+INT (or more if the psion chooses electricity). Also, the psion can target different saves. That really helps against a wide range of enemies.

EDIT: Burning 9 power points is like a 5th level spell. Is there a 5th level spell that does 9d6 energy of any type?
The 'any type' is just compensation for much lower 'spells known.' For an equal DC, you just need to Heighten a Fireball.

[Aotrs Commander]

When I DM, I don't allow psionics. Not for power reasons, but that I'm not too familiar with the system, and...well... for my world...they're just too Science Fictiony.(wait for it...)

Since you asked for it, you mean like Telekinesis, Teleport or telepathy...? You do know many of the technical terms used by psionics (and magic, and indeed sci-fi, when you come down to it) for that matter have a Greek or Latin origin, right...?

[Coidzor]

When I DM, I don't allow psionics. Not for power reasons, but that I'm not too familiar with the system, and...well... for my world...they're just too Science Fictiony.(wait for it...)

Indeed. I think you need your imagination checked. :smalltongue:

[Mr.Moron]

EDIT: Burning 9 power points is like a 5th level spell. Is there a 5th level spell that does 9d6 energy of any type?


Does it really matter? Baleful Polymorph is 5th level.

[Drolyt]

Augmenting a power increases the DC? I must have missed that. Anyways, to get the same effect with, say, a Sorcerer (which is closer to how a Psion works than a Wizard) you need either Heighten Spell or Energy Substitution or the Archmage PRC. That said, why bother? Use empower spell on a Fireball instead. Sure, they have 2 less DC for the save, but unless you are targeting a Rogue it is irellevent. Moreso if you instead Empower a touch spell like Scorching Ray. Fact is a Sorcerer can way out damage a Psion easily. Damage isn't what makes magic so powerful, however, and Psions are better at damaging than spellcasters that aren't optimized for it.

[Fax Celestis]

Augmenting a power increases the DC?

Most powers have an augmentation clause that increases their DC.

[Starbuck_II]

Augmenting a power increases the DC? I must have missed that. Anyways, to get the same effect with, say, a Sorcerer (which is closer to how a Psion works than a Wizard) you need either Heighten Spell or Energy Substitution or the Archmage PRC. That said, why bother? Use empower spell on a Fireball instead. Sure, they have 2 less DC for the save, but unless you are targeting a Rogue it is irellevent. Moreso if you instead Empower a touch spell like Scorching Ray. Fact is a Sorcerer can way out damage a Psion easily. Damage isn't what makes magic so powerful, however, and Psions are better at damaging than spellcasters that aren't optimized for it.

Augmenting some powers Increases DC (not a general rule but a specific situation rule).
Example this is true:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyPush.htm
Augment Every 2 PP used for augment increases damage by 1d6 and DC by 1.
So 9 PP (3 Base + 6 Augment) used by level 9 Psion (same as 5th level spell) increases damage to 5d6 ( 2d6 Base +3d6 augment ) and DC 10 + 2 level + 3 Augment= DC 15 + stat (same as a 5th level power/spell).

Yeash, Scorching ray breaks DMG rules on magic design.

[Fax Celestis]

Yeash, Scorching ray breaks DMG rules on magic design.

Scorching ray breaks a lot of rules.

[Lord Raziere]

THAT'S A JO..I SAY THAT'S A JOKE, SON! YA MISSED IT!! WENT RIGHT PASSED YA!! PAY ATTENTION WHEN I'M TAWKIN' TO YA!! nice boy, but he's got the attention span of an over-ripe grapefruit...:

:smallannoyed: Now you you just being annoying by talking weirdly. I don't consider logical fallacies funny anyways.

[Drolyt]

I see, that does make Psion damage spells more versatile. This kind of sucks for Sorcerers, who get about the same number of spells as Psions get powers but Sorcerers don't get to augment those spells. Metamagic is better than Metapsionics though and Sorcerer spells are largely more powerful than Psion powers. It also means nothing to Wizards or CoDZilla, who are still more versatile than Psions.

Also, as for the thing about the Psion getting 24 DC while everyone else got 20 DC. 5th level spell/power is base DC 15. You would need a 24 casting stat and greater spell focus to get DC 24 out of that. Your group must of been doing something wrong (or else that Psion was really optimized).

[tonberrian]

Scorching ray breaks a lot of rules.

And that's why we loves it so.

[Snake-Aes]

I see, that does make Psion damage spells more versatile. This kind of sucks for Sorcerers, who get about the same number of spells as Psions get powers but Sorcerers don't get to augment those spells. Metamagic is better than Metapsionics though and Sorcerer spells are largely more powerful than Psion powers. It also means nothing to Wizards or CoDZilla, who are still more versatile than Psions.

Also, as for the thing about the Psion getting 24 DC while everyone else got 20 DC. 5th level spell/power is base DC 15. You would need a 24 casting stat and greater spell focus to get DC 24 out of that. Your group must of been doing something wrong (or else that Psion was really optimized).

As a complement to that, augmenting a power is expensive. When it comes to damage, any arcane scaling beats psionic scaling. A lvl 20 wiz will do 10d6 with his lvl 3 fireball. If a psion invest the same amount on energy burst (is that the name of the analog power?) at level 20 compared to 3, he gets the lvl 3 power.

[Thurbane]

:smallannoyed: Now you you just being annoying by talking weirdly. I don't consider logical fallacies funny anyways.
It's Foghorn Leghorn speak. :smallwink:

[olentu]

I see, that does make Psion damage spells more versatile. This kind of sucks for Sorcerers, who get about the same number of spells as Psions get powers but Sorcerers don't get to augment those spells. Metamagic is better than Metapsionics though and Sorcerer spells are largely more powerful than Psion powers. It also means nothing to Wizards or CoDZilla, who are still more versatile than Psions.

Also, as for the thing about the Psion getting 24 DC while everyone else got 20 DC. 5th level spell/power is base DC 15. You would need a 24 casting stat and greater spell focus to get DC 24 out of that. Your group must of been doing something wrong (or else that Psion was really optimized).

Hmm perhaps it was one of those unusual powers that gain +1 DC per point.

[TaintedLight]

Well, I acknowledge that my experience with psionics was not enough to accurately judge the scope of its power, but we should probably get this thread back on topic, no?

[Drolyt]

Well, I acknowledge that my experience with psionics was not enough to accurately judge the scope of its power, but we should probably get this thread back on topic, no?

Perhaps, but this thread is 15 pages long. What else do people have to say about why people might dislike Tome of Battle?

[Doug Lampert]

Huh, I wonder where I saw that paragraph then. Looks like I read it wrong, because I thought manifester level was equal to ML 1 + ML 2 + ...

EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered one of the reasons that our table was uncomfortable with psionics after that game: Augmentation. The fact that so many powers allow you to augment your DC WHILE augmenting the number of damage dice and the like was a big hair-raiser for them. While the Psion was forcing DC 24 saves at 9th level, neither I nor the rogue/wizard/modified arcane trickster could force over a 20 on a good day.

Level 9 Wizard, starting Int 18, +2 for levels, +4 for a respectable duration level 2 buff spell (or he could make or buy or find an item), total +7 Int mod, level 5 spell.

Same for any other prepared full caster in the PHB. At level 9 you should be hitting DC 22 without serious difficulty, maybe only DC 21 if using very low optimization. 24 is achievable with SF and GSF if you care about save DC (which you really shouldn't).

I'm just not seeing the problem with a save DC of 24 that costs you something. The full casters can all do that too, they just don't bother because they've got better things to do than buff save DCs.

[TaintedLight]

Level 9 Wizard, starting Int 18, +2 for levels, +4 for a respectable duration level 2 buff spell (or he could make or buy or find an item), total +7 Int mod, level 5 spell.

Same for any other prepared full caster in the PHB. At level 9 you should be hitting DC 22 without serious difficulty, maybe only DC 21 if using very low optimization. 24 is achievable with SF and GSF if you care about save DC (which you really shouldn't).

I'm just not seeing the problem with a save DC of 24 that costs you something. The full casters can all do that too, they just don't bother because they've got better things to do than buff save DCs.

Fair enough. I suppose what turned people off about it most was the fact that the psion has the option of trading up in terms of power. A sorcerer's best equivalent to the power point system (that I can think of) is Versatile Spellcaster. However, you always have the option of burning low level slots to get higher level effects as a psion which is, to some, imbalanced. I'm not convinced one way or the other that is is imbalanced, but I can certainly understand the hesitation of some to allow that kind of shifting about of power. Comparing the psion to a wizard is a bad comparison anyways seeing as wizards are near-universally acknowledged as being broken.

Back on topic, I think the Tome of Battle turns a lot of people off for a few main reasons. One is because of the fact that its classes are obviously intended to be "wiz-warriors" as the fluff is presented, which clashes mightily with a certain ideal of the warrior as a pure agent of glorious, chaotic battle or graceful swordplay bereft of the frivolous or dishonorable trappings of mystical enhancement.

In addition, the easy recoverability of maneuvers and unlimited uses per day gives the appearance of an overpowered effect that you'll just be able to spam. Compare to the warlock, who in very casual/unoptimized circles is often considered broken because it gets to cast fly all day and invisibility all day as well as having a decently powerful touch attack that it can do at will. It becomes obvious in play that the abilities of a warlock are reasonably well scaled to the challenges that are presented to players of the warlock's level.

Finally, martial adepts just are more powerful than non-adept classes like the ranger or the fighter. Anything a fighter could be constructed to do, a warblade can probably replicate with their own feats and supplement with manuevers. An obvious system patch like ToB angers some who feel cheated for having played a fighter and now are seeing these newfangled warblades showing them up because melee should be allowed to have fun and be useful without relying on someone else too. Others, like myself, were glad to see WotC acknowledge the problem and give melee the boost it deserves.

[The Glyphstone]

Back on topic, I think the Tome of Battle turns a lot of people off for a few main reasons. One is because of the fact that its classes are obviously intended to be "wiz-warriors" as the fluff is presented, which clashes mightily with a certain ideal of the warrior as a pure agent of glorious, chaotic battle or graceful swordplay bereft of the frivolous or dishonorable trappings of mystical enhancement. .

Keep in mind that even this isn't entirely true. Swordsages have 'mystical enhancement' oozing out of their ears, and are definitely 'wiz-warriors' by their fluff. Crusaders less so, despite the bizzare weirdness that is [Ex] healing from Devoted Spirit. But Warblades...nothing in the Warblade default fluff presents them as anything except dudes who really like to fight, are really good at fighting, and like to show off how good they are at fighting. Their fluff even specifically mentions that they tend towards being Chaotic. They're locked out of all the supernatural and semi-supernatural disciplines without Martial Study, and get exclusive (barring Martial Study) access to the Iron Heart branch, including the much-maligned but incredibly Conan-esque Surge.

[Boci]

Back on topic, I think the Tome of Battle turns a lot of people off for a few main reasons. One is because of the fact that its classes are obviously intended to be "wiz-warriors" as the fluff is presented, which clashes mightily with a certain ideal of the warrior as a pure agent of glorious, chaotic battle or graceful swordplay bereft of the frivolous or dishonorable trappings of mystical enhancement.

I can understand that for the swordsage, but the warblade and the crusader as well?

And speaking of swordsages...

[Snake-Aes]

I can understand that for the swordsage, but the warblade and the crusader as well?

And speaking of swordsages...

psst... (I believe their wizards are scared because ToB touched their vancian tables at night)

[Boci]

psst... (I believe their wizards are scared because ToB touched their vancian tables at night)

Thats not really fluff though.

[Snake-Aes]

Hey, I don't have much more to add to that. My thoughts on that were already posted way earlier. People avoid new stuff to protect what they are attached to.

[TaintedLight]

Keep in mind that even this isn't entirely true. Swordsages have 'mystical enhancement' oozing out of their ears, and are definitely 'wiz-warriors' by their fluff. Crusaders less so, despite the bizzare weirdness that is [Ex] healing from Devoted Spirit. But Warblades...nothing in the Warblade default fluff presents them as anything except dudes who really like to fight, are really good at fighting, and like to show off how good they are at fighting. Their fluff even specifically mentions that they tend towards being Chaotic. They're locked out of all the supernatural and semi-supernatural disciplines without Martial Study, and get exclusive (barring Martial Study) access to the Iron Heart branch, including the much-maligned but incredibly Conan-esque Surge.

Not entirely, no. The fact that swordsages share a set of abilities (maneuvers as a unit, not just particular disciplines) with crusaders and warblades creates an association that is hard to ignore, though. Diamond Mind is a particularly good example of this. Using your own powers of concentration to fake out your opponent is some weird juju. You could fluff it reasonably easily as the same sort of thing that Shaolin monks or other prominent martial artists do, but even then some people find the association to be too close.

[Emmerask]

An obvious system patch like ToB angers some who feel cheated for having played a fighter and now are seeing these newfangled warblades showing them up because melee should be allowed to have fun and be useful without relying on someone else too. Others, like myself, were glad to see WotC acknowledge the problem and give melee the boost it deserves.

Why would anyone feel cheated playing a weaker class? You can make the same argument with a cleric/druid and a warblade both these classes can be build to emulate nearly everything the warblade can do and far more :smallwink:

If this is the reasoning then there are only 3 classes that should ever be played or else you could feel cheated those three are druid, cleric, wizard of course.

I have a wiz/swordsage in one game and play a monk in another and don´t feel cheated at all that the swordsage could have been a better monk and as yet I have to find the encounter where I can´t contribute something. I´m sure someday something will come up but my party members will not hesitate one second to render assistance if possible because we all want to have some fun time sharing a great story (hopefully) and don´t play a competitive game.

[Coidzor]

Indeed, my best friend was angry when he found out about ToB because he felt fighters were good enough.

No one else could figure out what was going on in his head.

[Mr.Moron]

Diamond Mind is a particularly good example of this. Using your own powers of concentration to fake out your opponent is some weird juju. You could fluff it reasonably easily as the same sort of thing that Shaolin monks or other prominent martial artists do, but even then some people find the association to be too close.

If being able to focus on and anticipate your opponent's moves is too outlandish and supernatural an ability for you to have, what in the world are you trying to do being a hero in a universe with giant flying fire-breathing lizards, chickens that can turn you to stone and not just one but several actual physical hells?'

EDIT: I'm rereading all the Diamond Mind fluff right now, the vast majority of it is "You're really good at sizing up your opponent, you do so and find some flaw in their tactics and exploit it". or "You've trained your sense of hearing very well,so long as you focus on doing so you can pick out things most people can't".

[Thurbane]

My 2 cents on the matter?

I think that if the core melee system was (is) as irrevocably broken as many suggest, I would have rather seen it addressed in errata or a 3.75 update*, rather than introducing new classes that basically render some of the core classes redundant, except as dips.

*Not 4E, because AFAIC, that was too radical a departure from the 3.X ruleset.

It's not only ToB I have this issue with: I don't like that Beguilers and Factotums out-rogue the Rogue, either. I like to be able to play core characters without feeling like I should have taken whizzbang class # 48 from splatbook X to achieve what I was trying to do.

I realize that ToB can be used in conjunction with core melee classes (either through feats or dips) to enhance their fighting ability, but the basic fact is the designers obviously developed these classes to replace their core counterparts (Fighter, Paladin, Monk).

Before the howls of outrage begin, please note this is my personal preference to how I would have like to seen it handled. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ToB, or how it was implemented, just that it doesn't gel with how I like to run a game (i.e. I like my games to be focused on the core classes, and the splats used to supplement them). I only really like extra base classes when they fill a new role or niche, not when they replicate or replace core classes.

I realise this is a rather peculiar hang-up, and that too a large degree I am fixated on the names of core classes being associated with particualr roles, but it's what I like in my game. I guess it's a carry over from my AD&D days - I remember when I first switched to 3.5 from 2E being absolutely amazed that the game had so many (optional) core classes available.

[Mr.Moron]

I think that if the core melee system was (is) as irrevocably broken as many suggest, I would have rather seen it addressed in errata or a 3.75 update*, rather than introducing new classes that basically render some of the core classes redundant, except as dips.


Except the classes in question Fighter, Paladin, etc... are so broken that any Errata comprehensive enough to act as a fix would basically be a total rewrite. The repairs they need go beyond a few edited lines, or an adjustment to a table. Wanting the Fighter, Paladin, Monk (and to a lesser extent the Ranger and Barbarian) as written in the core PHB to be 'fixed' is akin to asking someone to fix the car you bought from a crooked dealer. The car in question is a roughly box-shaped cardboard cutout with "Car" hastily scrawled on the side in crayon.

[thompur]

:smallannoyed: Now you you just being annoying by talking weirdly. I don't consider logical fallacies funny anyways.

Forgive me, Lord. I tend to forget that many, if not most, of the posters on this forum are quite a bit younger than I, aswell as having significantly different cultural background, and thus not understand my sense of humor, or my admittedly outdated pop-culture refernces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLAxnneKXdA

Cultural Reference.

[Thurbane]

Except the classes in question Fighter, Paladin, etc... are so broken that any Errata comprehensive enough to act as a fix would basically be a total rewrite. The repairs they need go beyond a few edited lines, or an adjustment to a table. Wanting the Fighter, Paladin, Monk (and to a lesser extent the Ranger and Barbarian) as written in the core PHB to be 'fixed' is akin to asking someone to fix the car you bought from a crooked dealer. The car in question is a roughly box-shaped cardboard cutout with "Car" hastily scrawled on the side in crayon.
I see your point, but thoroughly disgaree with your assessment of how broken the core melee classes are. I certainly agree that they lag behind casters and such, but I think they are a lot more workable, especially with ACFs and non-core feats, than all that.

I think your assessment would better suit the Warrior NPC class. :smalltongue:

Just out of curiosity - what do you think of the Pathfinder version of the Fighter?

[DragoonWraith]

Pathfinder added some more feats and more +numbers, two things the Fighter really had no shortage of. I'm all for giving the Fighter new stuff, but nothing Paizo gave them really addressed the main issues of the class. Add in the stealth nerfs that they got (more feats for everyone undermines the value of their main class feature, changes to the way feats work penalizes them more than others, etc), and I'd say that while the PF Fighter is probably better than the 3.5 one, relative to his competition I'd hazard a guess that he'd gotten worse.


Fair enough. I suppose what turned people off about it most was the fact that the psion has the option of trading up in terms of power. A sorcerer's best equivalent to the power point system (that I can think of) is Versatile Spellcaster.
No, the best equivalent is the way spells are written with "3d6 fire damage plus 1d6 fire damage for every two caster levels" - the things that the Psion has the option of trading up for, the Sorcerer gets for free.

[Drolyt]

I've had some in depth discussion about why Fighters don't work and why WotC thought they would, so I'm going to present what I've learned here. It's mostly second hand knowledge, I was introduced to D&D 3.5 and the only other edition I'm familiar with is 4e (I do have a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, but I've only read it, never played it).

Basically back in the day Fighters had the following advantages: Better melee combat, better armor, better saves, more hit points. That's it, no bonus feats because feats hadn't been invented yet. It seemed to work though, they were just mighty tanks but tanks were good back then. What happened? Basically the Fighter advantages disappeared. Everyone now had far more hit points so even if the Fighter got on average 3 more every level than the Wizard, nobody cared. The Fighter's supreme saves were butchered so that now they were only good at fortitude saves. Their AC was now no better than anyone else's. Not to mention many classes developed ways to get around AC and saves. So the Fighter's role as tank was ruined. Their few extra hit points just didn't do anything for them, especially with so much save or die going around. What was left for the Fighter? Ability to hit things. Well one of the Fighter's most powerful abilities was that they could attack multiple times in a round. WotC built this into the BaB system. Thing is, that was only useful for the Fighter because nobody else could. Oh, and WotC nerfed it. So basically all the class has going for it now is a bunch of bonus feats. Which would be sweat if feats were as useful as class abilities. Which they aren't. But they could have been. Top it off with the fact that spellcasting became far more powerful and the skill system is now very important with Fighters getting no spells and the worst skill set and you can see why Fighters dropped in power so much in 3rd edition.

How to fix this? You need to get rid of all those tricks to avoid AC and saves and then increase Fighter AC and saves so that they are the best (this involves some rather major changes to how armor works and the spellcasting system but is worth it). Then fix the hp system so that Fighters actually have an advantage in that department (maybe give max hp per level?). Give Fighters a feat every level so they don't have dead levels. Make feats actually useful, maybe translate some ToB maneuvers/stances into feats. Remove the concept of "class skills" and consolidate skills somewhat. Make it so only melee classes get iterative attacks, make a full attack a standard action, and give all attacks the full attack bonus. That should help the Fighter immensely. They will still largely be a one trick pony, but they will be a useful one trick pony.

[Thurbane]

That's actually some very astute points about the power creep of casters and power nerf of Fighters in 3.X. As someone who used to play AD&D 1E and 2E, it's definitely true. Ah, for the days when Fighters with Weapon Specialization got extra attacks per round. :smallbiggrin:

High level casters always wielded more power than high level melee types, but the power gap is more pronounced in 3.x than earlier editions.

[Coidzor]

I think your assessment would better suit the Warrior NPC class. :smalltongue:

Good point. Warriors really shouldn't exist. Fighter should be the NPC class.

[Drolyt]

Giving the Fighter some better crowd control would help too. Being a tank doesn't help if you can be ignored. Taunting like in MMOs probably won't work, but some control abilities that prevent the enemy from moving past you would be nice. Maybe an attack that prevents the opponent from moving for one turn. Some debuffing abilities wouldn't be out of place either. Basically give the Fighter a few more options. A Fighter that can't do anything but fight is fine, but D&D Fighters can't do anything but swing a stick. Give them more ways to be helpful.

Edit: Another thing might be to combine the Defense Bonus and Armor as Damage Reduction variants from Unearthed Arcana. An easy way for tank types to get energy resistance would help too.

[Frosty]

Well, a Spiked-Chain fighter with ways to get larger and the Stand Still feat isn't bad. Lockdown *is* one of the few ways a fighter could be decently useful especially if the enekies aren't always optiomized. Sprinkle in the Mageslayer feat tree to taste.

And Fighters have enough feats to pick that up *and* do Jack B. Quick stuff I think. Either that or he can pick up the Shock Trooper line. Charge into position doing big damage, then lockdown. Remember PA benefits lasts until your next turn, so your AoOs are getting huge damages too.

[Quincunx]

Forgive me, Lord. I tend to forget that many, if not most, of the posters on this forum are quite a bit younger than I, aswell as having significantly different cultural background, and thus not understand my sense of humor, or my admittedly outdated pop-culture refernces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLAxnneKXdA

Cultural Reference.

Warner Brothers cartoons don't have the global reach that Disney does--lack of syndication or something. I had to sit some non-Americans down and hold a WB mini-marathon for educational purposes. (After making me watch their culture's That Comedy Skit Which Shall Not Be Named, they owed me. :smallsigh:)

[Thurbane]

Good point. Warriors really shouldn't exist. Fighter should be the NPC class.
Oh come on now, you can't seriously put Fighters on a par with Aristocrats, Commoners and Experts, can you? That's just a wee bit disingenuous.

Warner Brothers cartoons don't have the global reach that Disney does--lack of syndication or something. I had to sit some non-Americans down and hold a WB mini-marathon for educational purposes. (After making me watch their culture's That Comedy Skit Which Shall Not Be Named, they owed me. :smallsigh:)
I'd like to point out that WB/Loony Toons are very well known in Australia...at least to my generation, anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Oh come on now, you can't seriously put Fighters on a par with Aristocrats, Commoners and Experts, can you? That's just a wee bit disingenuous.

They fit in better than Adepts.

[Boci]

Before the howls of outrage begin, please note this is my personal preference to how I would have like to seen it handled. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ToB, or how it was implemented, just that it doesn't gel with how I like to run a game (i.e. I like my games to be focused on the core classes, and the splats used to supplement them). I only really like extra base classes when they fill a new role or niche, not when they replicate or replace core classes.

I realise this is a rather peculiar hang-up, and that too a large degree I am fixated on the names of core classes being associated with particualr roles, but it's what I like in my game. I guess it's a carry over from my AD&D days - I remember when I first switched to 3.5 from 2E being absolutely amazed that the game had so many (optional) core classes available.

But why not just rename the factotum the rogue, and renaim the rogue the quickblade or something? The fact is, when someone does something a second time, there is a good chance they will do a better job.

[Runestar]

They fit in better than Adepts.

Well, adepts at least get sleep and polymorph...:smalltongue:

[Knaight]

Well, adepts at least get sleep and polymorph...:smalltongue:

That right there makes them more powerful than fighters...:smalltongue:

[Gnaeus]

My 2 cents on the matter?
I think that if the core melee system was (is) as irrevocably broken as many suggest, I would have rather seen it addressed in errata or a 3.75 update*, rather than introducing new classes that basically render some of the core classes redundant, except as dips.

I would rather have seen that also, but I can see how our personal preferences as gamers would take second place to the publisher's desire not to have to reprint a much different PHB with a marketing campaign of "whoops, I guess we messed that up last time". Not that 4.0's marketing campaign didn't have elements of that.

[Gnaeus]

Warblades don't do that by default any more than fighters do. Don't talk about things you don't understand like you do. Unless you mean Swordsage; in which case sorry for misunderstanding your typo.

Neither character can do it by default. Warblades, however, can do it multiple times in a battle if they care to learn it (or, if gear is available, if they get a cheap magic item like shadow hand gloves). Fighters can't.



It doesn't have to be a scientific survey. It says in the DMG that characters are expected to be outfitted with appropriate gear, and gives the GP limitations for communities; which most items fall within if your campaign so much as has a large city; and if you can't get the strongest you can get more of the moderate and lesser versions. Survey be damned, I'm talking about the rules.

Appropriate gear, being undefined, is meaningless as a rule. It means whatever the DM says it does.

There is no rule that says that the DM has to let your characters GET to a large city. I have played in games where we never entered a large population center.

And you can talk about the rules all you want. Facts on the ground indicate that there are a lot of games that play with a very close approximation of the PHB, but the DM thinks that magic marts are stupid and doesn't allow them. I am not defending this practice. It IS unbalancing. But it happens, a lot.


Also, I don't really care what your casters did. 3.x introduced magic item feats so people can use them. If your casters do not make use of them, then that is there problem.

But it ISN'T their problem. The casters don't NEED item creation feats to be effective. It is the tier 4-5's problem. The casters never noticed the problem.


I'm rather fond of Pathfinder because of this (making crafting items simpler, easier, and with no XP drain - and even offering an option for non-casters to craft stuff).

Agreed.


So to reiterate, I quote you again: "I have been in more games where the DM restricted equipment than where there were magic marts regularly available to the players." - To which I say, again, you have to make adjustments instead of complaining about problems you're creating.

I am not creating this problem. When I DM, I usually allow magic item purchase. If the campaign idea makes that difficult, I note that ahead of time, encourage item creation, and try to drop useful loot. This is a problem that I am remarking on after having observed it in multiple games with different DMs in different cities. A fighter CANNOT rely on having the item he needs to solve basic problems in what is at least a sizable minority of games, maybe a majority.



Yes, some classes suffer more, but then again spellcasters are surprisingly easy to nerf before super-high levels without even going outside of core or using stupid "everything is antimagic" fiats.

I'm sorry, who was talking about houserules versus RAW? Nerfing a caster is a houserule. WPL is a "guideline" (DMG 135). Communities have items under their GP limit "most likely available" where most likely is undefined, available is subject to interpretation, exceptions are noted as "certainly possible" and there is no rule requiring DMs to ever include a convenient town in their campaign.

Yes, between the two, nerfing casters is good for balance, and restricting items is bad for balance. But I don't think that that actually translates to "more DMs nerf casters than restrict item shopping".


I don´t quite see what this hypothetical not ever happening in a game situation proofs? well except that a dm can be an ass and deny any character its usefulness.

Some DMs plan encounters with specific intent that all characters be useful. Some DMs plan difficult encounters (or run sandbox games where the encounter level can vary wildly) and let the characters figure out how to be useful. If your DM is intentionally screwing your character, you are done. If your DM is just throwing out a tough encounter and letting the dice fall where they may, tier 4s and 5s are often useless, tier 3s rarely so, and well built tier 1s almost never.

[Ashiel]

Appropriate gear, being undefined, is meaningless as a rule. It means whatever the DM says it does.

Under the gear listing in the NPC chapter it describes purchasing common types of magic items. Since according the the rules a 50gp potion is far more common than a +1 weapon or +1 suite of armor (available in all but the tiniest of towns, and available in higher quantity based on the rules of community wealth and limits) then it seems asinine to argue that NPCs won't use them; especially since they are both far more frequent in availability and cheaper in the short term.

Have you ever played Baldur's Gate I or II by chance? Wonderful PC-RPG by Bioware. The 2nd game actually gives a message during the loading screen reminding players that using consumables like potions and wands can "make an impossible battle merely challenging". NPCs in that game occasionally carried potions (in fact, potions and scrolls were fairly common) and made use of them. Potions of invisibility, speed, or even various strength enhancers. It's a 2E AD&D based game. In the first game, the BBEG at the end actually chugs a potion of speed (haste) at the beginning of the fight - and if you don't dispel it you will be slaughtered.


There is no rule that says that the DM has to let your characters GET to a large city. I have played in games where we never entered a large population center.

Then why the hell do you even bother to carry gold pieces you're not going to be able spend? Every campaign setting I know of has large cities in it. Faerun has Waterdeep, Neverwinter, Luskan, and Baldur's Gate (just to name a few), and anyone that's played Eberron will instantly think of Sharn.

Every game I've ever been in, the players could actively choose where they wanted to go. "Hey, let's head to *insert city name here* and unload these thousands of gold pieces there and restock on supplies for our next *insert adventurous goal*". The DMG says that if you don't allow them to buy them, then you should include appropriate equipment in the game as treasures.


And you can talk about the rules all you want. Facts on the ground indicate that there are a lot of games that play with a very close approximation of the PHB, but the DM thinks that magic marts are stupid and doesn't allow them. I am not defending this practice. It IS unbalancing. But it happens, a lot.

I am talking about the rules, and will continue to do so. What you are describing is outside the realm of the rules. It irks me to hear people changing the way the game works and then complaining that it doesn't. There are facts on the ground to indicate a lot of games play differently; so I'm discussing the game, because I don't know Bob's game from George's, but I can talk about what the rules say.


But it ISN'T their problem. The casters don't NEED item creation feats to be effective. It is the tier 4-5's problem. The casters never noticed the problem.

A sign of inexperienced casters, I guess. Casters benefit from equipment too. Scrolls, wands, and staffs increase versatility and longevity. Stat boosting items increase bonus spells and hit points. Magic armors increase survivability (and I'm not talking about AC - I'm talking about decking your magic items out in sweet abilities like energy resistance, fortification, etc).

As noted before, the game assumes that either A) you get treasure and buy magic items, or B) the treasure is the magic items. As it is, casters can get by better without magic items because they have magic, obviously. If they cannot buy or create a Headband of Intellect, casting Fox's Cunning is the next best thing. If they can't find a magic sword, casting magic weapon or greater magic weapon works fine. If they're going to fight a fire-breathing monster, resist energy.

The thing is, these effects aren't supposed to be exclusive to casters because of magic items. It comes easier, of course, and you'd probably want to create a ring of fire resistance or a 5/day wand of energy resistance if you cast it a lot; but everyone is intended to have access to these things.


I am not creating this problem. When I DM, I usually allow magic item purchase. If the campaign idea makes that difficult, I note that ahead of time, encourage item creation, and try to drop useful loot. This is a problem that I am remarking on after having observed it in multiple games with different DMs in different cities. A fighter CANNOT rely on having the item he needs to solve basic problems in what is at least a sizable minority of games, maybe a majority.

I agree with this. A lot of DMs don't run the game correctly; which creates further disparity between characters. It's not a problem of the game, it's a problem of people not using the rules and then complaining about it because it doesn't work. Note: I'm not saying this makes the fighter "not-that-bad".


I'm sorry, who was talking about houserules versus RAW? Nerfing a caster is a houserule. WPL is a "guideline" (DMG 135). Communities have items under their GP limit "most likely available" where most likely is undefined, available is subject to interpretation, exceptions are noted as "certainly possible" and there is no rule requiring DMs to ever include a convenient town in their campaign.

Yes, between the two, nerfing casters is good for balance, and restricting items is bad for balance. But I don't think that that actually translates to "more DMs nerf casters than restrict item shopping".

Forgive my terminology. I never meant to suggest that I was changing the way the casters worked within the rules. I just meant they're not that difficult to deal with. I mostly play Pathfinder these days, but even in 3.5 there are many, many ways to deal with spell-casters.

For example, Concentration checks. You have to make a concentration check based on the amount of damage you take during the casting of the spell, so if you get hit three times with arrows that deal 5 damage (average 4 with a +1 from an oil of magic weapon applied to the bow) then you have to make a DC 15, 20, 25 check in that order. That's 3 chances to botch it. That's just dealing with CR 1/2 NPCs.

So let's say you're actually dealing with intelligent NPCs who work together. BBEG Cleric casts silence on his ally's sword and sends him into battle; shutting down traditional spellcasting in a 20ft radius (yay Psionics :smallbiggrin:); or a tanglefoot bag for a more direct approach.

In Pathfinder however, casters got some significant nerfs (at least 'till freedom of movement becomes easily available); since being grappled sucks bawls for casters in Pathfinder. :smalltongue:

[okpokalypse]

The long and the short - if I were going to play a high-powered melee PC, I'm not taking a class from ToB - I'm playing a Psy Warr / Ardent. I'm Doing Swift Dim-Doors. I'm Stopping Time. I'm always going 1st. I'm Metamorphosizing... Seriously. In terms of power-creep, ToB doesn't come close to what a XPH/CPsi Melee of Psy Warr / Ardent can do.

[Ashiel]

The long and the short - if I were going to play a high-powered melee PC, I'm not taking a class from ToB - I'm playing a Psy Warr / Ardent. I'm Doing Swift Dim-Doors. I'm Stopping Time. I'm always going 1st. I'm Metamorphosizing... Seriously. In terms of power-creep, ToB doesn't come close to what a XPH/CPsi Melee of Psy Warr / Ardent can do.

Yeah. I'm not really happy with the Comp. Psionic. Psychic Warriors had their tricks in core psionics (SRD psionics) but it was nothing super-amazing; but with the introduction of things like linked-power, it doesn't do much good for the "psionics is well balanced" reputation.

EDIT: But then again we got stuff like Celerity and Shock Trooper in the latter splat-books, so I guess maybe it's fairly balanced compared to other splat-material added around the time. I prefer core psionics though.

[Gnaeus]

Under the gear listing in the NPC chapter it describes purchasing common types of magic items. Since according the the rules a 50gp potion is far more common than a +1 weapon or +1 suite of armor (available in all but the tiniest of towns, and available in higher quantity based on the rules of community wealth and limits)

Potions are good, yes.
Fly is not remotely a 50 gp potion.
That NPC description does not in any way constrain the DM to make particular equipment available to the PCs.


Then why the hell do you even bother to carry gold pieces you're not going to be able spend? Every campaign setting I know of has large cities in it. Faerun has Waterdeep, Neverwinter, Luskan, and Baldur's Gate (just to name a few), and anyone that's played Eberron will instantly think of Sharn.

And the DM just says "You are level 2. Buy the equipment you want for this ocean voyage" and then you spend the next 7 levels in unexplored wilderness near the Isle of Dread after a shipwreck. Or you get lost underground. Or your PC's have ties to a village on the edge of creation and the game has time sensitive goals. After Teleport, it becomes less of a problem, so the DM ends the game shortly after Teleport becomes available.

If the DM doesn't want you to go to a city, you don't have access to a city. He can do it easily and without breaking any rules.


Every game I've ever been in, the players could actively choose where they wanted to go. "Hey, let's head to *insert city name here* and unload these thousands of gold pieces there and restock on supplies for our next *insert adventurous goal*". The DMG says that if you don't allow them to buy them, then you should include appropriate equipment in the game as treasures.

Give me a cite on that and where it defines what "appropriate" means.


There are facts on the ground to indicate a lot of games play differently; so I'm discussing the game, because I don't know Bob's game from George's, but I can talk about what the rules say.

Well, ultimately, the rules don't say that a fighter can get whatever gear he wants. What the rules mean is subject to debate (and the outcome of such an on line debate is meaningless unless one of the 2 of us is the DM in question). The fact that many games restrict gear is undeniable.

In this particular case, the problem is complicated by the fact that that rule is badly worded and stupid on its face. We both agree that in a perfect world, a fighter should be able to get a flight item in any major city. But the way that chapter may read/is often interpreted, I can buy a high level evil scroll from a rare cleric domain in the market of a lawful good theocracy. And if my purchase of that evil scroll hits the population center's gp limit, then the player next to me cannot buy a long sword or a potion of healing. This makes very little sense, so the entire section is often ignored.



A sign of inexperienced casters, I guess. Casters benefit from equipment too. Scrolls, wands, and staffs increase versatility and longevity.

Inexperienced, or selfish. If a wizard takes craft wands, or scribes a lot of scrolls, that does nothing for the fighter, unless the wizard is a team player. Not everyone is.


The thing is, these effects aren't supposed to be exclusive to casters because of magic items. It comes easier, of course, and you'd probably want to create a ring of fire resistance or a 5/day wand of energy resistance if you cast it a lot; but everyone is intended to have access to these things.

You know what else is in the DMG and presumably intended to be used? Random treasure tables. It is entirely in the rules for a fighter to have WBL amounts of usable items, which do nothing to solve his actual problems.


Forgive my terminology. I never meant to suggest that I was changing the way the casters worked within the rules. I just meant they're not that difficult to deal with. I mostly play Pathfinder these days, but even in 3.5 there are many, many ways to deal with spell-casters.

In Pathfinder however, casters got some significant nerfs (at least 'till freedom of movement becomes easily available); since being grappled sucks bawls for casters in Pathfinder. :smalltongue:

An experienced GM CAN challenge casters in this way. A particular, experienced GM MAY challenge casters in this way, or he may prefer sandbox games where the players have more choice about which enemies to fight. An inexperienced GM is highly unlikely to challenge casters effectively.

And yes, clearly we both like PF. Yes, some PF rules help this problem slightly. While we are discussing it, though, PF specifically allows DMs to run low magic games with no magic items for sale at all. It says that DMs in these games "should make some adjustments to the challenges (PF core 460)" which is as vague and meaningless a rules suggestion as I could point to anywhere.

[Ashiel]

Potions are good, yes.
Fly is not remotely a 50 gp potion.
That NPC description does not in any way constrain the DM to make particular equipment available to the PCs.


Ack, sorry. I was responding to the wrong thing. I was currently discussing something similar in another thread where there was some discussion about NPCs and their gear; and I kind of forgot which topic I was on. :smallredface:

My apologies. Though a potion of fly can be purchased in a small town or larger, meaning that statistically it will be more available than not based on the campaign rules in the DMG on page 137.

Likewise, on page 142 in the Campaigns chapter, it explains that magic items are assumed to be purchasable; either outright or by commission.


And the DM just says "You are level 2. Buy the equipment you want for this ocean voyage" and then you spend the next 7 levels in unexplored wilderness near the Isle of Dread after a shipwreck. Or you get lost underground. Or your PC's have ties to a village on the edge of creation and the game has time sensitive goals. After Teleport, it becomes less of a problem, so the DM ends the game shortly after Teleport becomes available.

If the DM doesn't want you to go to a city, you don't have access to a city. He can do it easily and without breaking any rules.

Firstly, if it were me, I rarely over-specialize - so the change of scenery likely wouldn't bother me or my choices that much; but I question the DM's motives, since it sounds as though he's intentionally being asinine.

But that is neither here nor there. What is however is that if the DM doesn't want you to, then you won't do anything (except leave his game for being a pitiful DM). If you ban evocation, the DM might throw nothing but fireball scrolls your way. If you take Weapon Focus: Greataxe, you may find nothing but lances and longswords. We could go on all day long about the multitude of ways your DM can intentionally screw you over...

But I'm not talking about bad DMs. I'm talking about the fact characters are intended to have level appropriate equipment; which is limited by your character's wealth by level, and assumes that they will be purchasing things that make them better. On page 296 of the MM, it also says that you should use the NPCs in the DMG to test a monster's CR; so it at least assumes you will be upgrading your +X stuff.

Page 212 of the Magic Item Chapter explains that being under equipped for your level, based on WBL, means you will be too weak to handle level appropriate encounters; and on page 51-53 describes the average wealth per encounter and treasure values for an adventure; which is likewise intended to have magic items.

The Red Hand of Doom adventure campaign by WotC discusses what you should do as a DM in the case of being time sensitive. It has various population centers of different sizes where you can convert your gold into various minor magic items and goods; as well as specifically noting that since characters will not have a lot of down-time, the treasure specifically includes a lot of usable equipment - and advocates swapping it for something equally good based on your party (such replacing a +3 greataxe with a +3 greatsword if your party's fighter uses greatswords).


Give me a cite on that and where it defines what "appropriate" means.

As noted above, the campaign section says they are intended to be able to buy magic items as part of the assumptions of the game. In the magic item section, it declares that awarding too few magic items makes the characters too weak to handle level appropriate encounters.


Well, ultimately, the rules don't say that a fighter can get whatever gear he wants. What the rules mean is subject to debate (and the outcome of such an on line debate is meaningless unless one of the 2 of us is the DM in question). The fact that many games restrict gear is undeniable.

Again, I have no control over games. If you run a game where you're lucky to have a +1 longsword at 8th level, then that's not my problem. Nor is it the game's problem in this case. You as the DM have made that choice, and should take responsibility for it. This is part of what makes a good DM or a poor DM.


In this particular case, the problem is complicated by the fact that that rule is badly worded and stupid on its face. We both agree that in a perfect world, a fighter should be able to get a flight item in any major city. But the way that chapter may read/is often interpreted, I can buy a high level evil scroll from a rare cleric domain in the market of a lawful good theocracy. And if my purchase of that evil scroll hits the population center's gp limit, then the player next to me cannot buy a long sword or a potion of healing. This makes very little sense, so the entire section is often ignored.

Negative. While it is indeed possible to purchase the scroll, doing so will not in any way affect the ability of someone else buying a longsword or potion of healing. As described on page 137, there will only be a certain number of that particular scroll available in the town based on its size, but otherwise has no effect on other items. If you are in a thorpe with only 60 people, then the community wealth limit on the number of items is 120 gold pieces. This means you could buy up to 4 potions of cure minor wounds, 1st level scrolls of magic missile, 2 greatswords, etc.


Inexperienced, or selfish. If a wizard takes craft wands, or scribes a lot of scrolls, that does nothing for the fighter, unless the wizard is a team player. Not everyone is.

Fair enough. If the character is a bad team player on a team game, then yeah, that's true. However, it also makes him a stupid player, since due to the way the XP rules work in 3.5, the wizard is enhancing his own survivability and cutting down on his action economy drain by having to pull the fighter's weight himself with summons and the like; and then can ride the XP wave if the XP burn from item creation drops him behind a bit - which can then be used to craft more items and thus gain more power.

The most selfish thing a wizard can do is make magic items for his party.


You know what else is in the DMG and presumably intended to be used? Random treasure tables. It is entirely in the rules for a fighter to have WBL amounts of usable items, which do nothing to solve his actual problems.

Yep. Fighters suck like that. I never suggested otherwise. Merely that flight and the like were not "I win buttons" past 5th or perhaps even 4th level. I'm not defending the fighter any more than I am the warblade, crusader, or anyone else that is commonly victim to the "it flies so you must lose" mindset.


An experienced GM CAN challenge casters in this way. A particular, experienced GM MAY challenge casters in this way, or he may prefer sandbox games where the players have more choice about which enemies to fight. An inexperienced GM is highly unlikely to challenge casters effectively.

With inexperienced GMs, it's often up in the air. I agree that it leans towards it being unlikely; since an experienced caster with an inexperienced GM will likely continually surprise the GM; and I likewise don't consider throwing wildly inappropriate encounters (in difficulty) good challenges (which some inexperienced GMs too).

Then again, inexperienced GMs are often boggled by many things. I recently met an experienced GM who thought flight was broken, or thought adamantine weapons were overpowered; and couldn't believe a 10th level character (a fighter even) was a walking natural disaster capable of tearing through buildings with his sword.

So I tend to put stock in experience; since it changes things by leaps and bounds. I met, about a year ago, a GM who thought wizards were way too underpowered, and was giving them recharge magic and allowing them to make called shots with true strike because "fighters get all the good stuff".

Really, with bad GMs, nothing works.


And yes, clearly we both like PF. Yes, some PF rules help this problem slightly. While we are discussing it, though, PF specifically allows DMs to run low magic games with no magic items for sale at all. It says that DMs in these games "should make some adjustments to the challenges (PF core 460)" which is as vague and meaningless a rules suggestion as I could point to anywhere.

Gamemastering (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gamemastering.html) gives most everything you need to build and regular your treasure horde, as well as magic items; and suggests including magic items your players can use; likewise the magic item availability is streamlined in Pathfinder; giving a far lower GP limit but also a fairly significant chance of finding individual magic items based on category (minor, medium, or major); allowing you to shop around a bit.

Off the record, I believe a little logic or common sense would go a long way with these things. I mean, if you're intentionally disallowing your players access to magic items, and still using powerful monsters or things with damage reductions; then you're either an ass or you're stupid.

EDIT/NOTE: It may be important to know that when I'm speaking in this conversation, I use the word "you" in hypothetical statements about GMs and players repeatedly. In this case "you" is whomever does these things; not you Gnaeus. Just wanted you to know I'm not calling you names. :smalltongue:

[Drolyt]

I tend to find Magic Marts don't gel thematically with my campaigns. It has never affected balance for me though because I tightly regulate the loot the characters get. I make sure everyone gets what they need to be effective and I even use loot to give a boost to characters that happen to be underperforming compared to the rest of the party. I find that balance is actually easier to achieve when characters aren't allowed to cherry pick their loot. I digress though. The fact that gear has such a huge impact on balance was probably the real mistake.

[tumble check]

It's much easier for me to rationalize, because I'm running a heavily modded Pathfinder, but I also don't like the magic item mart convention.

For example, a +2 weapon has the value equivalent of a decently-sized ship. Not many shopkeepers (or almost anyone, for that matter) will have the cash on hand to buy something like that. I more often have it so that wealthy investors are the ones that invest in magical pieces, not simple shopkeepers or blacksmiths.

But if you do it this way, then balance needs to be adjusted so that, at any given level, the PCs don't need to be decked in magical items in order to succeed.

[Eldariel]

Giving the Fighter some better crowd control would help too. Being a tank doesn't help if you can be ignored. Taunting like in MMOs probably won't work, but some control abilities that prevent the enemy from moving past you would be nice. Maybe an attack that prevents the opponent from moving for one turn. Some debuffing abilities wouldn't be out of place either. Basically give the Fighter a few more options. A Fighter that can't do anything but fight is fine, but D&D Fighters can't do anything but swing a stick. Give them more ways to be helpful.

Edit: Another thing might be to combine the Defense Bonus and Armor as Damage Reduction variants from Unearthed Arcana. An easy way for tank types to get energy resistance would help too.

Well, the real issue with Fighter's lack of tanking is the combat turns and how they work in 3.5. Basically, the option (that you have in real life) of "I don't let him pass" doesn't exist because you can't move out of turn order. AD&D (either edition) and basic all have more abstract movement system (or at least, what everyone I've gamed with has used) so the options "I get in his way" or "I run after him" actually worked.

Like, if Fighter could simply mirror his opponent's movements, he could just stay in the way forcing opponent to try Overrun if he wants to get past the Fighter (which isn't easy). Or beat through him. As the combat turns work now though, you can't do that. Things like taunts and all that crap don't belong in D&D IMHO; they're too illogical. I just can't see the Dragon going "OMG, you insulted my mother! Now you'll pay even though every other party member is much easier to kill, and much more dangerous offensively!" Another huge issue is of course lack of full attack after movement which makes Fighter all but useless unless everyone else stays still on levels with iteratives (and Haste).


And yeah, Con giving everyone majority of their HP really cuts down the impact of HD. If warrior-types e.g. got double the benefit from Con (sorta like in AD&D; yes, I'm aware the mechanics were different but same concept), that'd help a lot more. Or if your max Con bonus were capped by your Str bonus (+ some arbitrary number that's max-bonus Str 10 types can get), that'd help a lot too.

And if Max Dex simply didn't screw armor over, that'd help also. Like, gain ½ the Dex bonus beyond the Max Dex Bonus of your armor; that'd help a lot already. Makes high Dex Fighters slightly harder to hit than Low Dex ones, and gives Fullplate some tangible benefits for slowing your speed down to a crawl. Class-based AC bonus is also awesome (tho NOT previous-edition-legacy-restoration like everything else here) and something I use in my games constantly. Gets rid of two problems: "Pumping AC is all about magic items" and "Getting relevant AC is too expensive"

[Boci]

For example, a +2 weapon has the value equivalent of a decently-sized ship. Not many shopkeepers (or almost anyone, for that matter) will have the cash on hand to buy something like that.

Sorta like the modern art market, only the products have an easier to measure benefit.


I more often have it so that wealthy investors are the ones that invest in magical pieces, not simple shopkeepers or blacksmiths.

How does that make the magic mart less plausable? A bunch of aristocrats/merchant princes stockpile magical items knowing adventurers will generally pay double the price.

[Amphetryon]

Edit: Another thing might be to combine the Defense Bonus and Armor as Damage Reduction variants from Unearthed Arcana. An easy way for tank types to get energy resistance would help too.From personal experience, combining the Defense Bonus with Armor as DR doesn't actually help the Fighter much. Instead, it simply nerfs and/or eliminates the vast majority of builds that are based on getting off a large number of attacks, and makes the THF with the honkin' big axe even more prevalent.

Arbitrary numerical explanation: If you're doing 6 attacks a round for an average 10 damage each, the Defense Bonus combines with the built-in penalties for attacking with multiple weapons to make probably 1/2 of those miss except in corner cases, while DR 3/- hacks at your remaining damage dealt. You end up making 6 attacks for 21 damage. Axebeard McAxeterton, on the other hand, attacks once, with his highest BAB, to do 50 damage before DR. Note, however, that DR 3/- only cuts into his damage once, leaving 47 points damage to get through. That's a considerably better use of feat investiture before we even get into the issues of adding magic to multiple weapons and relative WBL.

[tumble check]

How does that make the magic mart less plausable? A bunch of aristocrats/merchant princes stockpile magical items knowing adventurers will generally pay double the price.


Not all investors are interested/able to buy anything the PCs have. It changes the game a bit, but it's a little more believable. And so if a PC REALLY wants to sell an item, they have to go out of their way to find a buyer.

[Boci]

Not all investors are interested/able to buy anything the PCs have.

I don't know. There is a 100% profit margian with magical items, say 90% after the it has been varified as genuine. That is bouned to atract some attention. As long as the magic item the PC is trying to buy/sell can be used by a wide range of classes, I am sure with adventurers could find a group of investors in any decent sized vity with a days work and a couple of skill checks.

[Frosty]

Sure, they can do that, and that adventure is fun the first few times. Then afterwards it gets stale and the PCs want to ge ton with the main plot. They'll start just discarding or giving away their excess stuff, and you'll need to tailor the encounters for them having less usable stuff.

[Lycar]

Uhm, aren't you all forgetting something?

There is a reason why a Fighter can't fly under his own power...

Because it is the god-damned job of the party arcanist to cast those Fly spells on the mellee types... That is why the party bothers to drag around the pointy-hated twit in the first place.

A wizard complaining that people who are not him can't break the rules of physics is forgetting that that is the frigging point of the game!

So yeah, we can give the Fighter all the neat stuff he needs to do HP damage to things as class features or magic items. Or we can let the party wizard do his frigging job. Or do you really think the game will improve if we leave the arcanists and divine casters obsolete because everybody can fly/teleport/scry/whatever without his help?

That is just the same thing as leaving mellee types irrelevant, just the other way around. Not good.

Lycar

[Boci]

Uhm, aren't you all forgetting something?

There is a reason why a Fighter can't fly under his own power...

Because it is the god-damned job of the party arcanist to cast those Fly spells on the mellee types... That is why the party bothers to drag around the pointy-hated twit in the first place.

No, thats one possible job (buffing). Battlefield control and debuffing are to others. Druids make better tanks, and with the right spells a wizard can manage.

Party of 4 fighters cannot handle nearly as many challanges as a party of 4 arcane casters.

[DeltaEmil]

That is why the party bothers to drag around the pointy-hated twit in the first place.
What reason does the imbecile with a sword have to be allowed to follow the cleric and his druid sister, with their wizard and sorceror henchmen?

[Eldariel]

Because it is the god-damned job of the party arcanist to cast those Fly spells on the mellee types... That is why the party bothers to drag around the pointy-hated twit in the first place.

Problem is tho, no. That may occasionally be possible but then the threat is not very dire; against big threats, the Wizard is needed to neutralize the enemy to such degree that the enemy won't pummel your poor Fighter to dust. He can't make the Fighter Fly while doing that. So the Fighter better have a ranged weapon & the capacity to use it almost as well as his melee weapon so as to actually pose a threat, or magic items that enable him to fly on his own, because otherwise his lackluster performance causes the entire party to receive extra turns of punishment from the not-debuffed-'cause-Wizard-had-to-buff-the-man-with-the-stick monster, quite possibly leading to someone dying; the party Fighter's efforts won't stop the monster from punishing everyone but the Wizard's tend to hugely decrease the performance of whatever you're up against. The Wizard's actions simply have more important uses than making the stick-who-can't-do-his-job-alone fly.

[Fax Celestis]

A wizard complaining that people who are not him can't break the rules of physics is forgetting that that is the frigging point of the game!

I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that the point of the game is to purposefully play powerful classes in a weak fashion so that weaker classes can participate?

Because I thought the point of the game was to have fun. And standing around being a buffbot knowing I can do so. much. more. is very definitely Not Fun.

[Emmerask]

I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that the point of the game is to purposefully play powerful classes in a weak fashion so that weaker classes can participate?

Because I thought the point of the game was to have fun. And standing around being a buffbot knowing I can do so. much. more. is very definitely Not Fun.

Then playing a tier 1 class is just not your cup of tea :smallwink:
As a wizard you simply have to hold back (well if you play a competent wizard) else you clear every single encounter in 1 to 2 rounds and the only one at the table that will have fun is you :smallwink:

This of course assumes a raw-ish game without any balancing houserules taking into account

[Lycar]

What reason does the imbecile with a sword have to be allowed to follow the cleric and his druid sister, with their wizard and sorceror henchmen?


I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that the point of the game is to purposefully play powerful classes in a weak fashion so that weaker classes can participate?

Because I thought the point of the game was to have fun. And standing around being a buffbot knowing I can do so. much. more. is very definitely Not Fun.

See, that is the point: The fighter is supposed to be very good at one thing: Dealing HP damage.

He is not supposed to be good at dealing with magic threats. Because that is not his job.

But when the caster types can 'do.so.much.more.' the problem lies with the casters.

The solution does not lie in heaping more and more feats/powers/abilities/whatever upon the fighter types, the solution lies in taking away power from the caster types until they need the mellee types again.

The wizard supremacists among you don't like to hear that of course, but that is the way to go: Take a look at the way other game systems balance mellee and magic and you will realize that (apart from games like Ars Magica obviously) magic is limited.

Magic is virtually unlimited in D&D, spell slots are plentiful and there is a spell in some splatbook for pretty much every problem imaginable. Too much, many too often.

Make it so that magic is either a lot less powerful (risks reducing caster types to second rate supporting cast.. what the mellee types are now) or limit the amount available.

Use a spellpoint system. And then let them regain, oh, 1d6+x spellpoints per night of sleep and watch them wizards become a lot more conservative about using magic to solve problems that skill could do as well.

And for god's sake, just because there are all these humungous amounts of monstres with ever more ridiculous powers and abilities doesn't mean you have to use them! Just because there are over 1000 published spells does not mean they have to actually exist in every game world.

If a spell is a problem, it needs to go right out of the window. And if a monster is a problem, guess what? It does not exist. problem solved.

Bottom line: You want mellee to be relevant again? Cut the casters down to size. Make them useful, even powerful but not overpowering and omnipotent.

How you go about doing this is up to you. You can go the easy way and just not play anything but casters and be done with it. Or you figure out what really makes casters broken in your game and eliminate it.

And lo and behold... suddenly playing a caster type becomes even more fun, not because you can do everything, but because now you can excel at making most of what you can do.

Lycar

[Fax Celestis]

As a wizard you simply have to hold back (well if you play a competent wizard) else you clear every single encounter in 1 to 2 rounds and the only one at the table that will have fun is you :smallwink:Why would I, rp-wise, hold back on a potentially lethal situation?


The wizard supremacists

The second you said this I stopped reading. There is no Supremacy Coalition for the Embetterment of Arcane Spellcasters: there is the simple fact that pound-for-pound, level-for-level, spellcasters are far and away more powerful than other classes.

Please do not accuse me of being a 'wizard supremacist' when I have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164574) done (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100936) so much (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98238) in my (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99504) own work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124934) to level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106397) the playing field (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101419).

[Boci]

See, that is the point: The fighter is supposed to be very good at one thing: Dealing HP damage.

Nope. Tank soaks up hp damage and other threats, glass cannon DPRers deals hit point damage. Besdies, the fighter is good at neither. Can't move and full attack, and has few ways to get a creature to attack him.

So the problem isn't just with the casters, but also the fighter not being good at their intended role.

My personal favourite is using advanced learning classes for casters, using homebrew for those that do not have an official version.

[Frosty]

Hence the d20 Rebirth type project. Getting all the probleatic spells changed is a HUGE undertaking, as is making martial characters interesting. I haven't really played a Swift Hunter yet because I know every round in combat I'd go, "I move 20 ft and greater-manyshot AGAIN. Oh the surprise." And this build is supposed to be high tier 4 or low tier 3 or something.

[Drolyt]

Nope. Tank soaks up hp damage and other threats, glass cannon deals hit point damage.

Uh, you are mixing classifications. Tank is a role, glass cannon is character type. The damage dealing role is usually called DPSer.

[Fax Celestis]

Hence the d20 Rebirth type project. Getting all the probleatic spells changed is a HUGE undertaking, as is making martial characters interesting. I haven't really played a Swift Hunter yet because I know every round in combat I'd go, "I move 20 ft and greater-manyshot AGAIN. Oh the surprise."

Exactly. Fixing that is difficult. And immense.

[Boci]

Uh, you are mixing classifications. Tank is a role, glass cannon is character type. The damage dealing role is usually called DPSer.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that to me.


"I move 20 ft and greater-manyshot AGAIN. Oh the surprise."

Mystic ranger gives you some more spells to spice things up a bit, and if you go melee you could always go wildshaping ranger. But yeah, still pretty similar tactics from round to round.

[tumble check]

Nope. Tank soaks up hp damage and other threats, glass cannon DPRers deals hit point damage.

Wait, so a fighter's role is simply to be in the battle?

If the DM is RPing an opponent's priorities in any way (i.e. attack the thing that is the greatest threat to you), then this doesn't work very well.

[Boci]

Wait, so a fighter's role is simply to be in the battle?

If the DM is RPing an opponent's priorities in any way (i.e. attack the thing that is the greatest threat to you), then this doesn't work very well.

Thats the point. Fighters have a role (tanking), but are very bad at fitting it. They can do damage, but their are other classes for that.
Pretty much the only decent fighter build for tier 3 and above is lockdown.

[Emmerask]

Nope. Tank soaks up hp damage and other threats, glass cannon DPRers deals hit point damage. Besdies, the fighter is good at neither. Can't move and full attack, and has few ways to get a creature to attack him.


This might hold true for mmos but really not for 3.5

Any charger build (which fighter can be build around quite good too) will outdamage a wizard (or other glass canon) anytime when it comes to single target damage.

[Drolyt]

This might hold true for mmos but really not for 3.5

Any charger build (which fighter can be build around quite good too) will outdamage a wizard anytime when it comes to single targets.

Well, it doesn't work out in the end product but that is what was supposed to happen and is how it worked in previous editions (although it was never spelled out like it is in video games).

[Boci]

This might hold true for mmos but really not for 3.5

Any charger build (which fighter can be build around quite good too) will outdamage a wizard (or other glass canon) anytime when it comes to single target damage.

Thats 1 kinda specific fighter build with a lot of limitations (must be able to charge being the biggest). I personally wouldn't call the fighter a DPR class based on that.

[Frosty]

Wait, so a fighter's role is simply to be in the battle?

If the DM is RPing an opponent's priorities in any way (i.e. attack the thing that is the greatest threat to you), then this doesn't work very well.
That depends on the creature. A Dire Bear who is hungry is going to have a different attack routine and combat tactics/priorities than the BBEG Beguiler nicknamed Mr. Xanatos Gambit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit).

[Fax Celestis]

Any charger build (which fighter can be build around quite good too) will outdamage a wizard (or other glass canon) anytime when it comes to single target damage.

Sure, but your target can prevent charges very easily. Difficult terrain? No charging. Something in the way? Nope. Runs around the corner? Nuh-uh. Flies when you don't? Not then either. Immediate action teleportation? Nope, sorry. Better reach than you with the Stand Still feat? Mm-mm. Has Elusive Target? Nope. Better reach than you with Elusive Reflexes? So sad.

[Doug Lampert]

Sorta like the modern art market, only the products have an easier to measure benefit.



How does that make the magic mart less plausable? A bunch of aristocrats/merchant princes stockpile magical items knowing adventurers will generally pay double the price.

I find the idea of such a stockpile implausible in most settings. It will draw looters from accross the continent.

OTOH a broker who KNOWS everyone in the city with a +2 sword they inherited and might be willing to sell, and who KNOWS everyone in the city who might be willing to make a +2 sword on commission, and who thus CAN get you a +2 sword given 10 days notice I find quite likely.

He needs to make about one sale per YEAR to be doing VERY well out of this.

If he ALSO disposes of the loot, finding someone who'll buy it for a substantial (but less than 50% discount) if he can find one, but they're in no hurry and not interested in paying as much as a commissioned peice would cost then he's doing even better.

Since I find games where you ALWAYS can't get 10 days off or the city/world/multiverse is destroyed TOTALLY implausible, this works well enough to mostly duplicate magic-mart without having a warehouse full of magic items waiting to be looted.

[tyckspoon]

Any charger build (which fighter can be build around quite good too) will outdamage a wizard (or other glass canon) anytime when it comes to single target damage.

Metamagic Orbs say hi. (Ok, so a fully-fledged charger is capable of more damage than the 480-ish a good Orb burst will probably do. They're both comfortably past the point of one-shotting anything shy of an Epic challenge, so it doesn't really matter.)

[Frosty]

Sure, but your target can prevent charges very easily. Difficult terrain? No charging. Something in the way? Nope. Runs around the corner? Nuh-uh. Flies when you don't? Not then either. Immediate action teleportation? Nope, sorry. Better reach than you with the Stand Still feat? Mm-mm. Has Elusive Target? Nope. Better reach than you with Elusive Reflexes? So sad.
Since you can jump as aprt of your movement, I believe it *really* makes sense that you can jump over certain difficult terrain as part of the charge (if you can make the jump check of course). If you can'tjump during a charge, then the Leap Attack feat doesn't make sense.