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

Boci

2010-08-23, 04:24 PM

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.

Who says they're in a warehouse? They could be on display in the aristocrat/merchant's house. That way any measures he takes to protect his own life will also protect his magical item investments. Big risk, but big reward. Some people are fine with that.

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.

That helps with a patch of DT, but not if the whole battlefield is that.

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.

I generally find making PCs wait 10 days for equipment to be bad. You don't want to force them to choose between a time sensitive plothook and a shiny new toy too often.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 04:32 PM

I find the idea of such a stockpile implausible in most settings. It will draw looters from accross the continent.

...We do the same thing in our modern society. Do you know what we use? Security. No reason you can't do the same with traps and guards, unless you fall into The Guards Must Be Crazy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGuardsMustBeCrazy) trope.

Frosty

2010-08-23, 04:34 PM

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 04:35 PM

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.

Leap Attack explicitly allows you to make a Jump check as part of a charge. Regular charges have to be in a straight line: jumps are not straight lines, they're more of an arc.

If the book doesn't say you can, you can't. Otherwise, my first-level human fighter has laser beams from his eyes at will--the book doesn't say he can't shoot lasers from his eyes, so therefore he must be able to!

Frosty

2010-08-23, 04:40 PM

Leap Attack explicitly allows you to make a Jump check as part of a charge. Regular charges have to be in a straight line: jumps are not straight lines, they're more of an arc.

If the book doesn't say you can, you can't. Otherwise, my first-level human fighter has laser beams from his eyes at will--the book doesn't say he can't shoot lasers from his eyes, so therefore he must be able to!
So if you have Leap Attack *then* you can avoid terrain by jumping when charging?

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 04:45 PM

So if you have Leap Attack *then* you can avoid terrain by jumping when charging?

...does it say you can?

Terrain and Obstacles
Difficult Terrain

Difficult terrain hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. (Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares.) You can’t run or charge across difficult terrain.

If you occupy squares with different kinds of terrain, you can move only as fast as the most difficult terrain you occupy will allow.

Flying and incorporeal creatures are not hampered by difficult terrain.

Eldariel

2010-08-23, 04:52 PM

The problem with the Fighter-class is that, frankly, his class features don't contribute much to his job. What's his job? Well, far as I'm concerned, Fighter's jobs are:
- Protecting the weaker party members (and by extension, being hardier than the weaker party members so he can actually soak up/avoid the punishment he calls upon himself)
- Dealing enough damage to monsters to be a serious threat
- Acting as a problem-solver to opponents resistant to other means of attack

Now, looking at Fighter's class features, they provide him with:
- Some damage in Core, enough damage to matter out-of-Core.
- Little to no ability to protect the weaker party members.
- Little to no durability/avoidance compared to the other party members
- No problem-solving ability whatsoever.

Compare this to AD&D where Fighter could switch to the Dagger-spam when needing to pierce the Stoneskin, Sword when needing basic up-front damage (TWF was nice for that) and Bow when needing to shoot that damn flying thing.

And he did all that more or less competently (granted, the points weren't in such a large supply and you weren't Grand Mastering a bunch of weapons, but they did get the job done) while having the best saves and tons of HP.

If Fighter's class features gave him what he should have, he'd have some problem-solving ability simply on the back of mastering multiple weapons suitable for different situations to a completely uncomparable degree. He'd also have obscene saves and enough HP to make non-warrior classes look silly by comparison. I'm talking double their HP or so here.

Not being able to protect the weaker party members is mostly a game mechanical flaw, but one that could be addressed with class features anyways. It just so happens Warblade gets things like stunning monsters, following up enemies you've engaged, punishing the openings they give by attacking someone else and so on. So I think the problem was noted and kinda patchwork patched.

Thurbane

2010-08-23, 05:14 PM

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.

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.
...from the very post you quoted. Hope that answers that? :smalltongue:

Boci

2010-08-23, 05:30 PM

...from the very post you quoted. Hope that answers that? :smalltongue:

Names of the core classes being assosiated with particular roles. But the rogue (factotum) can deal damage, sneak and scout ahead, handle traps ect, like the rogue (rogue) can, but the former is better in the sense that they can cope with a wider range of circamstancesa nd are IMO more fun to play.

Lans

2010-08-23, 05:48 PM

...does it say you can?
If squares are squares then aren't they 2-D, thus meaning that a jump avoids any difficult terrain on the ground?

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 05:55 PM

If squares are squares then aren't they 2-D, thus meaning that a jump avoids any difficult terrain on the ground?

Difficult terrain does say "flying" creatures ignore difficult terrain. I think one can make a solid argument for a jumping creature to be flying for a very very short time.

Thurbane

2010-08-23, 05:56 PM

Frosty

2010-08-23, 06:01 PM

Difficult terrain does say "flying" creatures ignore difficult terrain. I think one can make a solid argument for a jumping creature to be flying for a very very short time.
Exactly. It makes logical sense that if there's just low-lying rubble or perhaps a few squares filled with Grease someone athletic enough can jump over to avoid the obstacle and keep on running. People in the olympics jump Hurdles all the time and maintain their speed.

Lycar

2010-08-23, 06:01 PM

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.

There are three ways to deal with this: Whine about it, gloat about it or do something about it.

I sure want to do something about it.

Take your pick.

EDIT: Oh and another thing: For those who still remember dungeon crawls, you might remember that the fighter was very good at tanking by virtue of simply blocking the corridor with his warm body. In a 10 feet corridor, add a dwarf.

All this talk about 'pulling aggro' and that are just MMORPG artifacts. Because, realistically, in an open environment THERE IS JUST NO WAY for anyone to force others to attack them. All you can do is block off terrain, i.e. battlefield control. That is what arcanists are good at: Force the enemy to have to deal with the fighter types if they want to get to the wizard.

That is teamwork people: The wizards help the mellee types do their job. That the fighter is supposedly bad at it is an artifact of more and more enemies being ridiculously overloaded with more and more magic just to still be a challenge to casters.

You don't need some mystic force that compels enemies toignore the squishies and go for the meat shields, you need a dungeon corridor. And if you aren't in a dungeon, an arcanist who makes his own walls.

The problem is that he can do things that are a lot more effective then that. These things need to go.

Lycar

Frosty

2010-08-23, 06:02 PM

Boci

2010-08-23, 06:02 PM

To me, adding additional base classes that are better at the core class roles than the core classes feels a little like when a laundry detergent launches a new formula "now with XYZ ingredient for extra washing action!".

It can reek of introcuding something bigger and better just to sell splats. To be honest, Dungeonscape really doesn't have that much for optimizers (it's fairly PrC and feat lite). A lot of people who bought it got it just for the Factotum (maybe for Dungeoncrasher variant, too). I'm not saying that was the thought process behind behind the Factotum, but a lot of splats (not just WotC or 3.X, but most RPGs) do have a tendency towards power creep, and lot of optimizers feel compelled to have them just so that their characters can be more powerful.

...like I said - introducing new classes that are better at the roles that core classes are supposed to fill just rubs me the wrong way. You might as well just use the Lightning Warrior as a replacement for the Duskblade and be done with it! :smallbiggrin:

But the duskblade's role is a ready made gish who specializes in doing damage. It can do that. The rogue on the other hand is plagued by numberous problems that the factotum does not have, or is not as crippled by them.

The signature ability of a rogue, SA, can be ignored/reduced by a lot of monsters. And when it isn't, for a melee rogue you are adjacent to a monsters that, barring specific builds, has little reason not to attack your fragile d6 body.

The factotum makes a swiss army knife that functions a lot more smoothly than the origional candidate. Its powercreep, but in this case is it really that bad?

There are three ways to deal with this: Whine about it, gloat about it or do something about it.

I sure want to do something about it.

Take your pick.

Lycar

I am confident you have not produced a 10th of the amount of homebrew material Fax has.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 06:05 PM

There are three ways to deal with this: Whine about it, gloat about it or do something about it.

I sure want to do something about it.

Take your pick.

I already took my pick.

http://www.theanteheroes.com/pics/d20r.png (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132683)

The-Mage-King

2010-08-23, 06:05 PM

Gentlemen, this, like so many other ToB discusssions, has, well... see the spoilered diagram.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/29970/original/trainn.jpg?1260328965

Any questions?

Lycar

2010-08-23, 06:13 PM

{Scrubbed}

DragoonWraith

2010-08-23, 06:16 PM

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.
Incorrect, as far as I can tell. You're not allowed to turn while charging, and jumping is a change in direction...

And Leap Attack works differently. With Leap Attack, any time you drop from (I can't quite recall how many) feet, it counts as a charge, even if it would not otherwise count. Which is great, because any time you can jump that high (even as a move action), you get your Charge, which means you get Pounce.

This is still not really as good as just having martial maneuvers, really, even if it is more damage.

Boci

2010-08-23, 06:21 PM

{Scrubbed}

No, we usually just insist that as written, casters are far more powerful than melee. Usually because someone comes along and insists that that is not the case. And we point out what we judge to be poorly thought out houserules that completly miss the point for restoring balance, and disagree with posters who believe that actually balancing core is trivial or easy.
Besides, our opinions on RAW and our playstyles are not linked, unless someone changed the rules whilst I was napping.

Just because a poster makes a joke about a fighter being an imbecile with a sword doesn't mean they are what you called them.

OzymandiasVolt

2010-08-23, 06:21 PM

Actually, Leap Attack enables you to make a Jump as part of a charge. The benefit kicks in if the horizontal distance is 10+ ft.

DeltaEmil

2010-08-23, 06:25 PM

ScrubbedDo you feel it applies to anybody on this message board at all? I don't.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 06:29 PM

{Scrubbed}No, I feel like you are applying it to me.

{Scrubbed}...and now you start insulting me. Sir, I ask that you look at the work I have done to repair the game before you assume I am a rank amateur with delusions of grandeur.

DragoonWraith

2010-08-23, 06:31 PM

Actually, Leap Attack enables you to make a Jump as part of a charge. The benefit kicks in if the horizontal distance is 10+ ft.
Ack, you are correct. I was thinking of a different feat. Roof-Jumper, maybe? I think it was a Cityscape one.

Lycar

2010-08-23, 06:33 PM

{Scrubbed}

OzymandiasVolt

2010-08-23, 06:35 PM

Unapproachable East has a feat called Battle Jump that initiates a Charge if you drop onto an opponent from at least 5ft above their head. Could this be the one you are thinking of?

DragoonWraith

2010-08-23, 06:35 PM

Unapproachable East has a feat called Battle Jump that initiates a Charge if you drop onto an opponent from at least 5ft above their head. Could this be the one you are thinking of?
Yeah, that's the one.

Boci

2010-08-23, 06:36 PM

{Scrubbed}

Okay, lets analyze your small amount of quality then.

{Scrubbed}.

This has potential problem of making casters useless. Yes a caster are Op and their power could do with some curbing, but taking away their ability cast spells should be a last resort. Its not solid fixing.

{Scrubbed}

So a condition that affects melee more than casters, and PC melee more than melee monsters has become more annoying?

{Scrubbed}

Who takes hp damage more often: casters, or melee?

{Scrubbed}

So spend a feat and other resources (you need to boost your opposed roll) on an ability that can only be used rarely?

{Scrubbed}

This is a solid idea.

{Scrubbed}

Yep. ToB does that. Your houserules? I'm not so sure.

Lycar

2010-08-23, 06:39 PM

{Scrubbed}

Boci

2010-08-23, 06:43 PM

{Scrubbed}

On the boards we generally talk about gaming in a vacuum, because it just gets confusing if everyone is applying it to their own specfific games. Not everything we say best represents our action in a party. For example I say a party of all casters is generally better than a party of 2 casters and 2 melee. Does that mean I will insist everyone plays a caster in every game I'm in? Of course not. I claim that not all casters are to buffing. Does that mean I find it perfectly reasonable for a caster to say to his melee partner "No I won't buff you, I too busy crippling the enemy"? Yes.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 06:44 PM

The only thing I claim is that I do my damnedest to make my work reasonable and interesting for all styles of play. Do not put me in a box, and do not put words in my mouth.

OzymandiasVolt

2010-08-23, 06:45 PM

As an aside, taking a position of "if you are offended by my statement that can reasonably be construed as an insult, that's your problem" is not a functional practice in social situations, as it creates conflict in a situation where there should not be any.

Simply clarifying your intent is far more diplomatic than declaring that you don't care about the other person's feelings on the matter.

Lycar

2010-08-23, 06:50 PM

{Scrubbed}

Boci

2010-08-23, 07:01 PM

{Scrubbed}

Maybe, but good house rules are generally suited for more groups than just your own. If these house rules work for you, then nothing negative I say about them will matter to you. All I can do is voice my problems with them. Although I believe I am not alone.

{Scrubbed}.

By limiting spell point regeneration you are taking away their ability to cast. Not completly, but you are still increasing the chance of them not being able to cast.

{Scrubbed}

I was talking about you making disarmed more annoying.

{Scrubbed}

Not all players will like taking penalties, even if they can also dish out penalties. Also, if monsters have more hp they will be less affected. And blasting is suboptimal. Dual threat is not.

{Scrubbed}

Still spending resources on something that does not always come up. Compare to power attack. Plus you've got the whole problem of BBEG, when faced with a choice, choosing henchmen who are better at fighting the PCs which some DMs are fond of.

{Scrubbed}

Well, Fax felt you were trying to insult them. I interpreted your comment the same way, and so did Ozy. Maybe, instead of all us wanting to feel you insulted Fax, you made a mistake and wrote in a way that did not reflect your intentions well.

OzymandiasVolt

2010-08-23, 07:09 PM

It was taken as an insult due to tone and context. You had just mentioned Fax's work, and you did not change the focus afterward, so Fax was still subject when you finished your thought.

You did not mean for it to be an insult. This is fine. I was just saying that instead of responding to what was an entirely reasonable assumption with a dismissive tone, you could have simply clarified that it wasn't your intention. This would have had the same effect without generating extra hostility.

Speaking of clarification, I wish to clarify that I do not in any way mean for this to be an attack on you, merely an observation on social dynamics that you may employ in the future to your benefit should you choose to do so. (I apologize if this sounded in any way condescending, as that is not my intention.)

Gnaeus

2010-08-23, 07:19 PM

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...

Or unintentionally. My only point is that the rules do not in fact say that characters can buy item X. Only that item X is likely to be available in a town of a certain size.

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.

Agreed, although the WBL uses the word guideline, which strongly implies to me that it isn't a rule. But a muggle can possess his WBL in items, while not having the items he needs to beat common challenges.

The Red Hand of Doom adventure campaign by WotC discusses

Don't know. I don't really consider an adventure campaign to be part of the central rules set unless you are playing that campaign.

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.

That isn't exactly what it says.

In the magic item section, it declares that awarding too few magic items makes the characters too weak to handle level appropriate encounters.

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.

WBL is a guideline. The problem doesn't always come from ignoring WBL. If I'm 8th level, and I have a +3 Frost Battleaxe and a +2 adamantine longsword, with no way to sell them,and I am a chain tripper, or an archer I'm just kinda shafted.

The most selfish thing a wizard can do is make magic items for his party.

I agree. If for no other reason than to keep the other players feeling like they are useful so that he can keep breaking the universe with his wizardry. Not every player shares this viewpoint.

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.

Certainly not. But they can be an I lose button if you don't have a workaround. In the campaign I am currently in, we almost got TPKed by flying undead ranged attackers. The swordsage/chameleon couldn't use his ranged attack (Shadow garotte) because they were undead. The Necromancer couldn't use his spectral hand ranged touches because they were undead. The chain tripper couldn't hit them because they were ranged, and the archer could barely beat their DR. The DM knew this, and had planted some fly scrolls, which we didn't find.

Really, with bad GMs, nothing works.

Beyond a certain point, you are right. There are a lot of games in the grey area where strong characters function and weak characters don't.

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;

I don't actually see where it says that in that link. Anyway, items your players can use /= items your players want or need.

Off the record, I believe a little logic or common sense would go a long way with these things.

Those are hard to find some days. Also, see comment on bad DMs.

Thurbane

2010-08-23, 07:22 PM

Guys...let's try to calm down a notch...it would be shame for this thread to get locked bacuse of some (hopfully unintentional) insults toward each other. We can disagree on points without being unneccesarily adversarial about it - or at least, I hope we can. :smallwink:

But the duskblade's role is a ready made gish who specializes in doing damage. It can do that. The rogue on the other hand is plagued by numberous problems that the factotum does not have, or is not as crippled by them.

The signature ability of a rogue, SA, can be ignored/reduced by a lot of monsters. And when it isn't, for a melee rogue you are adjacent to a monsters that, barring specific builds, has little reason not to attack your fragile d6 body.

The factotum makes a swiss army knife that functions a lot more smoothly than the origional candidate. Its powercreep, but in this case is it really that bad?
I guess it's a matter of your view of the Rogue. Personally, I think it fills it's role fairly well. We may well have a variation in what that role is - to me, the Rogue's primary purpose is skillmonkey/trapfinder, with sneak attack being secondary - although I realize that is open to debate.

That's why I also have a bit of a beef with Beguiler - basically, a full casting Rogue who can spam Knock, Detect Secret Doors, Invisibility, Silence, Spider Cimb etc. How is this not making the Rogue redundant? Sure, Beguiler doesn't get sneak attack, but he does get lockdown effect (Slow, Confusion, Solid Fog etc.) that in most ways are superior to sneak attack.

I guess I just don't like to see core classes that I have been playing in one incarnation or another for over 20 years relegated to dips or being totally superceded. I like when splats add options (ACFs, feats, PrCs) that boost the core classes, rather than introducing a new class that does it all, only better. It's a basic difference in design philosophy, I guess...

Boci

2010-08-23, 07:28 PM

I guess it's a matter of your view of the Rogue. Personally, I think it fills it's role fairly well. We may well have a variation in what that role is - to me, the Rogue's primary purpose is skillmonkey/trapfinder, with sneak attack being secondary - although I realize that is open to debate.

The thing with that is, in most games combat is a big party of it, so each character needs to be able to contribute.

That's why I also have a bit of a beef with Beguiler - basically, a full casting Rogue who can spam Knock, Detect Secret Doors, Invisibility, Silence, Spider Cimb etc. How is this not making the Rogue redundant? Sure, Beguiler doesn't get sneak attack, but he does get lockdown effect (Slow, Confusion, Solid Fog etc.) that in most ways are superior to sneak attack.

I guess I just don't like to see core classes that I have been playing in one incarnation or another for over 20 years relegated to dips or being totally superceded. I like when splats add options (ACFs, feats, PrCs) that boost the core classes, rather than introducing a new class that does it all, only better. It's a basic difference in design philosophy, I guess...

And this was my initial question that I didn't understand your asnwer to: why are you so attached to WotC's first attempt to make a skill monkey. What made you think they had it right then? Imagine if the factotum had been in the PHB and the rogue was released in a splat. Would you mind indiana jones then?

Eldariel

2010-08-23, 07:39 PM

{Scrubbed}.

Have you ever tried to get past someone who doesn't intend on letting you pass? 'cause the only way that is gonna happen is with incredible dexterity and/or a feint, or simply being able to run over the other guy. That's a perfectly fine way of forcing the Ogre to hit the Fighter; standing in its way and if it tries to push through you, hit it and foil the attempt!

And have you tried to do anything concentration-requiring while someone is constantly pestering you? 'cause someone with a sword 5' from you trying to kill you should be a problem enough for you to not be able to focus on aiming an arrow or cast a spell or some such. And there's no way to generate a safe gap without simply being faster than the guy or having your own guy-with-a-sword interpose himself and engage the other guy.

Those seem like perfectly fine means to control the opponent's actions; simply being in the way and hacking at them with pointy things. There's no reason those things should be limited to a dungeon; you can block someone's movement on a completely open plains by just standing in front of them and moving as they move. And you can, all other things (speed, stamina, etc.) being equal, chase someone infinitely on said plains if you get next to them never letting them get a gap big enough to fire a bow safely.

The Glyphstone

2010-08-23, 07:46 PM

Have you ever tried to get past someone who doesn't intend on letting you pass? 'cause the only way that is gonna happen is with incredible dexterity and/or a feint, or simply being able to run over the other guy. That's a perfectly fine way of forcing the Ogre to hit the Fighter; standing in its way and if it tries to push through you, hit it and foil the attempt!

And have you tried to do anything concentration-requiring while someone is constantly pestering you? 'cause someone with a sword 5' from you trying to kill you should be a problem enough for you to not be able to focus on aiming an arrow or cast a spell or some such. And there's no way to generate a safe gap without simply being faster than the guy or having your own guy-with-a-sword interpose himself and engage the other guy.

Those seem like perfectly fine means to control the opponent's actions; simply being in the way and hacking at them with pointy things. There's no reason those things should be limited to a dungeon; you can block someone's movement on a completely open plains by just standing in front of them and moving as they move. And you can, all other things (speed, stamina, etc.) being equal, chase someone infinitely on said plains if you get next to them never letting them get a gap big enough to fire a bow safely.

That's the real problem, though, because for the most part, 3.5 rules don't let you do these things, such as 'move as they move'. You're locked into a single 5ft cube when it's not your share of the arbitrary six-second timespan, and all they have to do is walk in a different set of 5ft. cubes.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 07:47 PM

The Glyphstone

2010-08-23, 07:49 PM

Well, there's the knight...

Hence "for the most part" - the exceptions are few and far between...Knight, Tripping, and Stand Still are the only ones that come to mind immediately, aside from weird instances like a martial adept readying a Stone Vice strike.

Boci

2010-08-23, 07:51 PM

Hence "for the most part" - the exceptions are few and far between...Knight, Tripping, and Stand Still are the only ones that come to mind immediately, aside from weird instances like a martial adept readying a Stone Vice strike.

ToB also had some nice maneuvers for the crusader to persuade monsters to attack you and not you allies. There was the 1st level stance that gave a penalty to the attack roll, the second level boost with made them provoke an AoO if they attack an ally instead of you, the counter to give an ally extra AC., ect.

There are a couple of feats, but they are mostly pretty bad. Their was a feat chain in Drows of the Underdark that was decent, but required 3 feats. Then ofcourse there's the problem that fighter's do not have that many hitpoints if they are taking all the hits.

Eldariel

2010-08-23, 07:56 PM

That's the real problem, though, because for the most part, 3.5 rules don't let you do these things, such as 'move as they move'. You're locked into a single 5ft cube when it's not your share of the arbitrary six-second timespan, and all they have to do is walk in a different set of 5ft. cubes.

Yeah, my point was that it's not in any way unrealistic to somehow give characters the ability to block their opponents off simply because of how the turn system works. Stating that it's somehow not logically possible for the sword-guy to protect the squishies or disable enemy squishies feels wrong.

It's simply a game-technical issue and IMHO one of the key points of the role problems the Fighter (among others) suffers of; and the logical, real-world approach offers a logical, realistic solution that just needs to be codified in game rules to suddenly enable the Fighter to fulfill one of his tasks.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 07:59 PM

It's simply a game-technical issue and IMHO one of the key points of the role problems the Fighter (among others) suffers of; and the logical, real-world approach offers a logical, realistic solution that just needs to be codified in game rules to suddenly enable the Fighter to fulfill one of his tasks.

Like Step Up (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/step-up-combat---final)?

Thurbane

2010-08-23, 08:04 PM

The thing with that is, in most games combat is a big party of it, so each character needs to be able to contribute.
Agreed. Still, I think the Rogue does OK, for a non full BAB and non-casting class can be expcted to. Sneak attack can be heavily tweaked, and there's a lot of ACFs, feats, spells and such that overcome sneak attack immunity.

And this was my initial question that I didn't understand your asnwer to: why are you so attached to WotC's first attempt to make a skill monkey. What made you think they had it right then? Imagine if the factotum had been in the PHB and the rogue was released in a splat. Would you mind indiana jones then?
As I said, I am heavily (and possibly even irrationally) attached to the traditional D&D core classes. True, back in the day he was called a Thief, and Sneak Attack was Backstab, but the core concept is fundamentally the same.

Factotum (and Beguiler) have different schticks (Inspiration Points and Spells respectively), but end up stepping all over the toes of the Rogue in his role as skillmonkey. This is what bothers me. The same way that the Warblade (Fighter replacement), Swordsage (Monk replacement) and Crusader (Paladin replacement) bother me.

Not that the full casting core classes can't step all over the roles of other core classes as well, but IMHO more of the same isn't the answer.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:07 PM

Wow, not sure how this thread got so charged. Fax, almost everyone here knows about your contributions and value them highly, I wouldn't worry about one guy going on like that. As for how Fighters act like a tank, how about an ability that essentially allows them to move with their foe. Not sure how you would write it, but essentially when the enemy tries to move past you you move in their way (they end up moving sideways), although you spend some of your next movement to do it.

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:09 PM

Agreed. Still, I think the Rogue does OK, for a non full BAB and non-casting class can be expcted to. Sneak attack can be heavily tweaked, and there's a lot of ACFs, feats, spells and such that overcome sneak attack immunity.

But even once you've overcome immunity to SA, a mellee rogue will be adjacent to the monster it just SA-ed, and the chances are the tank on the opposite side of the monster will have few ways to discourage it from focusing its full attack on you. How many full attacks can a rogue take with their d6 hitdie and MADness?

As I said, I am heavily (and possibly even irrationally) attached to the traditional D&D core classes. True, back in the day he was called a Thief, and Sneak Attack was Backstab, but the core concept is fundamentally the same.

Factotum (and Beguiler) have different schticks (Inspiration Points and Spells respectively), but end up stepping all over the toes of the Rogue in his role as skillmonkey. This is what bothers me. The same way that the Warblade (Fighter replacement), Swordsage (Monk replacement) and Crusader (Paladin replacement) bother me.

Not that the full casting core classes can't step all over the roles of other core classes as well, but IMHO more of the same isn't the answer.

Okay, I understand what you mean now.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:11 PM

I'm with Thurbane on preferring they fix the core classes than add new classes. Not that it matters much now.

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:13 PM

As for how Fighters act like a tank, how about an ability that essentially allows them to move with their foe. Not sure how you would write it, but essentially when the enemy tries to move past you you move in their way (they end up moving sideways), although you spend some of your next movement to do it.

Swordage had a stance that allowed you to do this, so modeling a feat (or possible 2, but no more than that) off that could work.

I'm with Thurbane on preferring they fix the core classes than add new classes. Not that it matters much now.

For some of them though, like the fighter, it was just easier to remake them. Feats just don't replace class features.

For others its more feasible. The thug is arguably an alternative replacement for a mellee heavy rogue for example.

Caphi

2010-08-23, 08:14 PM

Can't you just ready an action to move when they move?

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 08:15 PM

Can't you just ready an action to move when they move?

And lose out on attacking?

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:15 PM

Can't you just ready an action to move when they move?

Can't attack them then, unless you only move 5ft, in which case you loose out on full attack.

Cainen

2010-08-23, 08:17 PM

Factotum (and Beguiler) have different schticks (Inspiration Points and Spells respectively), but end up stepping all over the toes of the Rogue in his role as skillmonkey. This is what bothers me.

But they don't obsolete the Rogue the way the Warblade almost does. The Rogue never had trouble doing its job and always had a few tricks on hand to pull - the other classes do something different with the base. Whether they're better at it or not doesn't matter at all when the original class can still perform up to standards.

The same way that the Warblade (Fighter replacement), Swordsage (Monk replacement) and Crusader (Paladin replacement) bother me.

Keep in mind that they're not there just to force power creep on the game or obsolete a perfectly good class; they're there because outside of seriously optimized builds for two of the original classes, they simply don't perform nearly as well as the game expects them to.

I wouldn't view the classes as replacements as much as I would consider them as insuring that the role intended for the original classes was covered and playable by most anyone who had a tiny grasp on the game.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:19 PM

For some of them though, like the fighter, it was just easier to remake them. Feats just don't replace class features.

Well, there's the rub. You can't do much to fix the Fighter as written. I'll argue all that should really be done is give a bonus feat every level rather than every other and better saves. The rest is in fixing the system so that tanks are actually viable and making some feats that are actually useful. It's not that feats can't be as useful as class features.

Eldariel

2010-08-23, 08:21 PM

Like Step Up (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/step-up-combat---final)?

Sort of, but it takes so much more to actually make it all work out; you'd need to be able to follow entire move actions and intercede any kind of movement past you, not just 5' steps next to you. But as I said, it's a good start. ToB tries it too, but the 3.X turn system just doesn't really like melee threat functioning logically.

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:22 PM

Well, there's the rub. You can't do much to fix the Fighter as written. I'll argue all that should really be done is give a bonus feat every level rather than every other and better saves. The rest is in fixing the system so that tanks are actually viable and making some feats that are actually useful. It's not that feats can't be as useful as class features.

Well everyone gets feats, so making he fact that you ger more feats than everyone else make up for the fact that you have no class features is tricky. Plus if your going to rehaul the system to make the fighter competant, why not just use a warblade and call it a fighter?

Sort of, but it takes so much more to actually make it all work out; you'd need to be able to follow entire move actions and intercede any kind of movement past you, not just 5' steps next to you. But as I said, it's a good start. ToB tries it too, but the 3.X turn system just doesn't really like melee threat functioning logically.

For expirienced players with game mastery and willing to spend a bit more time per combat, point buy initiative is always an option, although I've never gotten a chance to try that out.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:24 PM

Well everyone gets feats, so making he fact that you ger more feats than everyone else make up for the fact that you have no class features is tricky. Plus if your going to rehaul the system to make the fighter competant, why not just use a warblade and call it a fighter?

Warblade isn't OGL, so I can't use it as written in Drolyt20. I could certainly do something very similar, but that would be no less work than fixing the Fighter that is just sitting there asking to be fixed.

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:26 PM

Warblade isn't OGL, so I can't use it as written in Drolyt20. I could certainly do something very similar, but that would be no less work than fixing the Fighter that is just sitting there asking to be fixed.

Why would you need to change anything? You could just have links to the class and the maneuvers.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:31 PM

Why would you need to change anything? You could just have links to the class and the maneuvers.

ToB isn't perfect, for one thing. And I can't very well call it a complete system if you need another product to use it.

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:33 PM

ToB isn't perfect, for one thing. And I can't very well call it a complete system if you need another product to use it.

Oh, so you intend to do something with your system beyond just posting it on a homebrew thread? Okay, that makes sense.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:36 PM

Oh, so you intend to do something with your system beyond just posting it on a homebrew thread? Okay, that makes sense.

I would like to, yes. Even if that never happens it would bug me if my free contribution couldn't be used without a proprietary product.

DragoonWraith

2010-08-23, 08:38 PM

You might look into ErrantX's Libram of Battle (http://sorcererstudios.com/forumdisplay.php?3-Libram-of-Battle), which, according to his sig, is a completely OGL version of Tome of Battle.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 08:45 PM

You might look into ErrantX's Libram of Battle (http://sorcererstudios.com/forumdisplay.php?3-Libram-of-Battle), which, according to his sig, is a completely OGL version of Tome of Battle.

I'll check it out, thanks.

Doug Lampert

2010-08-23, 08:52 PM

...We do the same thing in our modern society. Do you know what we use? Security. No reason you can't do the same with traps and guards, unless you fall into The Guards Must Be Crazy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGuardsMustBeCrazy) trope.

The real world suffers a decisive shortage of people individually stronger than entire national armies and ALSO desperate for money.

And it also has not a single cash stockpile as valuable as a single really good magic item.

And it also has all its great powers people that DON'T engage in random looting expeditions against anyone weaker than they are.

And in the real world defense is (much) stronger than offense since the defender has cover and controls the surrounding area with no way for the attacker to bypass by teleporting in or out.

D&D land lacks EVERY ONE of those advantages.
Security for a magic item stockpile needs to have the world's strongest wizards on permanent standby, and UNFORTUNATLY, the way the rules are written, they'll STILL LOSE because the attackers can SBT them.

Boci

2010-08-23, 08:59 PM

The real world suffers a decisive shortage of people individually stronger than entire national armies and ALSO desperate for money.

And it also has not a single cash stockpile as valuable as a single really good magic item.

And it also has all its great powers people that DON'T engage in random looting expeditions against anyone weaker than they are.

And in the real world defense is (much) stronger than offense since the defender has cover and controls the surrounding area with no way for the attacker to bypass by teleporting in or out.

D&D land lacks EVERY ONE of those advantages.
Security for a magic item stockpile needs to have the world's strongest wizards on permanent standby, and UNFORTUNATLY, the way the rules are written, they'll STILL LOSE because the attackers can SBT them.

Following that logic, how are any aristocrats still alieve? They piss off one band of adventures and they're dead, nothing they can do about it.

Fax Celestis

2010-08-23, 09:10 PM

The real world suffers a decisive shortage of people individually stronger than entire national armies and ALSO desperate for money.D&D has people with Lawful Good alignments who would willingly accept tasks to defend such targets. NPCs level as high as PCs.

And it also has not a single cash stockpile as valuable as a single really good magic item.Fort Knox, USA. Abdin Palace Museum, Egypt. Schatzkammer, Austria. Rosenborg Castle, Copenhagen. Kremin Armoury, Moscow. Royal Treasury, Stockholm, Sweden. Tower of London, England.

And it also has all its great powers people that DON'T engage in random looting expeditions against anyone weaker than they are....because they're concerned about losing. NPCs level as high as PCs.

And in the real world defense is (much) stronger than offense since the defender has cover and controls the surrounding area with no way for the attacker to bypass by teleporting in or out.Anticipate greater teleport. Dimensional anchor. Teleportation tracer. Cloister.

D&D land lacks EVERY ONE of those advantages.No it doesn't.

Security for a magic item stockpile needs to have the world's strongest wizards on permanent standby, and UNFORTUNATLY, the way the rules are written, they'll STILL LOSE because the attackers can SBT them.

Nope, just one.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 09:14 PM

Yes Fax, NPCs level as high as PCs. PCs aren't the only ones doing all those things. If D&D had any logic every government would work by asskicking equals authority, because only high level characters can police other high level characters.

Doug Lampert

2010-08-23, 09:17 PM

Can't you just ready an action to move when they move?

And then what? You've given up your attack to ready an action, I move, taking the Oportunity attack to go arround you with a diagnal move.

And you do what with your readied action? Move in front of me again?

But you only get one opportunity attack provoked by movement per my turn, and I've already given you that, so I just step around you with another diagnal and you've cost me at most 5' of movement.

Doug Lampert

2010-08-23, 09:23 PM

Following that logic, how are any aristocrats still alieve? They piss off one band of adventures and they're dead, nothing they can do about it.

What does an aristocrat have that makes them particularly vulnerable? They get NO boost to wealth by level, so in the average town the top level COMMONER is VASTLY richer than the top level aristocrat! So adventurers certainly won't go after them for the loot.

What do they do to annoy the adventurers? Give their non-existent subordinates orders the adventure disapproves of? There's nothing in the class description that says they have any actual political power or followers, they get no advantage to leadership. Nor does the power-centers discussion of the communities section really discuss aristocrats as a common power source!

Aristocrats are presumably the sons and daughters of adventurers or wealthy merchants or someone who can manage to pay for some training for a kid who isn't "elite". They've got nothing anyone else wants and mommy and daddy get annoyed if you attack them.

Meanwhile actual power is excersized by people who are actually at least moderately dangerous.

Drolyt

2010-08-23, 09:24 PM

I thought he meant actual nobles, not people with the aristocrat class.

Boci

2010-08-24, 04:08 AM

I thought he meant actual nobles, not people with the aristocrat class.

Yep. Glad to see some posters got my meaning.

Roderick_BR

2010-08-24, 12:03 PM

Hence "for the most part" - the exceptions are few and far between...Knight, Tripping, and Stand Still are the only ones that come to mind immediately, aside from weird instances like a martial adept readying a Stone Vice strike.
Exactly. You need to train a lifetime of martial training just to be able to stay in front of someone.

ToB also had some nice maneuvers for the crusader to persuade monsters to attack you and not you allies. There was the 1st level stance that gave a penalty to the attack roll, the second level boost with made them provoke an AoO if they attack an ally instead of you, the counter to give an ally extra AC., ect.
I actually like this sort of mechanic, of actually be protecting allies/disrupting enemies moves, rather than an "aggro" system.