PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with the core classes?



NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 12:01 AM
Most particularly the lower ranks; Ranger and Monk's issues are easily isolated to deal with. But, aside from a few issues with magic, what's wrong with Pally, Fighter, Barbie, etc? This includes Psionic classes.

SRD PrCs that suck can be mentioned too.

dgnslyr
2010-10-02, 12:04 AM
Fighter has nothing but feats to work with. Sadly, his feats don't amount to much when you compare it to, say, the Warblade, who has all kinds of neat swordfighting techniques other than charging, full attacking, and attacking.

Zodiac
2010-10-02, 12:13 AM
Most particularly the lower ranks; Ranger and Monk's issues are easily isolated to deal with. But, aside from a few issues with magic, what's wrong with Pally, Fighter, Barbie, etc? This includes Psionic classes.

SRD PrCs that suck can be mentioned too.

Barbarians, Rogues and Rangers aren't quite that bad, but Fighters suffer from the cold, hard truth that bonus feats are not nearly as good as class abilities and IIRC, the Fighter's bonus feat list isn't even very impressive (especially in core) and the Paladin has a lot of flavorful abilities, but in practice they're pretty unpractical.

For PrCs, the Assassin who sucks at assassinating.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-02, 12:16 AM
Plus, the Paladin code is a swift kick in the teeth to an already somewhat weak class.

Zaydos
2010-10-02, 12:17 AM
Paladin has harsh role-playing restrictions. A few times a day ability that attempts, badly, to make up for missing fighter's bonus feats. Spells that in Core aren't worth using. A cool, but all too often impractical, mount. Healing that's not worth more than a few cure light wounds spells. And Divine Grace, which would have been awesome on someone who could use it.

Dark_Nohn
2010-10-02, 12:31 AM
I personally hold Paladins over Rangers in Tier levels, because Rangers aren't skill monkeys like Rogues (They do have some useful skills, but no trapfinding, UMD,) and only outclass a fighter when they're fighting their favored enemy.
Paladins get quite a number of good defensive abilities and a few offensive buff spells. As for tracking, it's nicer to just con the group's barbarian or druid into picking up the feat.

JaronK
2010-10-02, 12:34 AM
The Fighter class doesn't do what the Fighter fluff says it should (be a good guard, tough military veteran, or experienced martial commander). Plus they're boring and the class features you get at level 20 are basically the same as the ones you get at level 2. While getting both Shock Trooper and Spirited Charge at level 6 is awesome, the feats you're getting at level 12 won't be any better than the ones you got at level 6.

Rogues have that annoying binary issue where their primary attack form (sneak attack) is completely negated by a large number of enemies (plants, elementals, oozes, stuff Uncanny Dodge or Foritification armor, and also Undead and Constructs if they don't have the right gear for it). They're also a close range class that's generally supposed to be on the opposite side of the monster from the Fighter... but have d6 HD, light armor, and no significant defensive abilities. Also, spells too often just trump skills (Arcane Lock defeats Open Lock, while Knock works fine, for example).

Psionics are on the other side... Psions themselves have broken and overpowered abilities (not as many as Wizards, but they're there). Psychic Warriors are pretty solid though. Lurks just feel like lame Rogues.

The Barbarian is pretty much combat only. On the bright side, Lion Totem gives them one of the best melee abilities at level 1, so they can rock combat... there's just rarely anything else to do outside of combat. In some games that's okay. In others, that's really lame.

Paladins... well, let's just say Clerics and Crusaders do it better, so why bother?

JaronK

ranagrande
2010-10-02, 12:35 AM
If you're looking at the entire SRD, the Epic Mystic Theurge is the worst class of them all.

Eldariel
2010-10-02, 12:37 AM
Fighter:
- Only gets feats, no actual class features.
- Only gets something every other level.
- Has none of the skills it would take to be an efficient non-magical character, nor the skill points for that matter.
- Has an insanely poor selection of feats in Core which leads to them not being even nearly as good as actual class features.
- Lacks uniqueness; every class can replicate what a Fighter can do (just, Fighter generally picks more feat lines and thus can do a number of things equally well but as all of those amount to "hit something hard with X" where X varies, that's not terribly useful)
- Lacks scaling; Fighter's "class features" actually get worse the higher he gets since the options available for feats just get worse and +12 is the highest prerequisite available in Core (and that's a BAB prerequisite; no reason to take Fighter to get it). He simply gets worse and worse things as he gets higher and higher.
- Frontloaded: Two feats over first two levels and then half that later on. Four levels of Fighter gets you 3 feats and Weapon Specialization which is pretty much all you care about without ACFs.

Paladin:
- Insanely frontloaded; they get tons of abilities over the first two levels and then basically nothing after level 5, other than few spells (at least they get decent spells).
- They are insanely multi-attribute dependent especially if you want to do anything but a dumb, charismatic two-hander.
- They only get 2+Int skills per level and basically need to sink one into Ride; coupled with their requirement of Charisma, Strength, Constitution and Wisdom before Int, this leaves them with horrible, horrible base skill points. And they happen to need certain skills for many of their class features (K: Reg for turning undead, Concentration for spells, Ride for mount - and Pally isn't a Pally without Sense Motive and Diplomacy).

Barbarian - Barbarian is actually relatively well off compared to others but there's still some problems, namely:
- Lots of dead levels. Sure, all of them give something but when that "something" amounts to Trap Sense or some such, you might as well not get anything.
- Rage scales too poorly. On level 1, Rage is insanely powerful (but rarely available). It becomes more available, but the improvements are minor, especially the level 20 one.
- Gains DR a tad slowly. It could be a decent addition and a sorta "replacement" for armor if it came in larger quantities but now it basically amounts to ~Improved Toughness against melee attacks.
- Lack of interesting (and worthwhile) class features later on. Most of them aren't all that useful, to be honest. Indomitable Will is cool (definitely helps with melees' tendency to get mind controlled) but still a mere numeric bonus. Something like Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy or gaining Immunity to Mind-Affecting while Raging or so would make the latter levels more rewarding.

Basically, while Barbarian isn't nearly as bad as Fighter (and to lesser extent Pally), he still starts off well but the scaling of his abilities is just plain slow. ACFs again help things (Trapkiller helps with versatility, Street Fighter gives you truly interesting abilities later on, etc.) but we're talking about the base class here.


Really, Rogue and Barbarian are the best-designed Core classes, out of which Barbarian needs more help while Rogue mostly needs to be able to SA everything to some degree and maybe gain Special Abilities a bit earlier (and the problem with all melee classes - needs to be able to move and full attack in the same turn to not get his damage minimalized whenever he's not adjacent at the start of a turn). Oh, and Rogues of course want a class feature for level 20. Ranger needs some offensive bonuses later on, not to mention useful spells (Spell Compendium fixed this), while Monk...well, Monk needs Unarmed Swordsage 'cause getting a pack of unrelated abilities just doesn't really do it.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-02, 12:42 AM
I personally hold Paladins over Rangers in Tier levels, because Rangers aren't skill monkeys like Rogues (They do have some useful skills, but no trapfinding, UMD,) and only outclass a fighter when they're fighting their favored enemy.
Paladins get quite a number of good defensive abilities and a few offensive buff spells. As for tracking, it's nicer to just con the group's barbarian or druid into picking up the feat.

tiers are about versatility. Immunity to diseases often doesn't matter, Immunity to fear has never been useful to me and divine grace would work better on a class that has charisma as a key stat,which is why Paladin 2 is often a dip for Sorcerers.

Even then, what's versatile about them? Their spell selection might qualify, but none of the spells strike me as particularly good. Other than that, they have pretty much nothing. They have cure disease, a weaker version of cure x wounds and 2+int skill points per level.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-02, 12:43 AM
On the other hand, people are still playing it years after Fourth Edition came out. Case in point, this thread. No mention of what edition either then mentioning the SRD, yet we know what this thread is about and many have already contributed. SO they must have done SOMETHING right.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-02, 12:45 AM
On the other hand, people are still playing it years after Fourth Edition came out. Case in point, this thread. No mention of what edition either then mentioning the SRD, yet we know what this thread is about and many have already contributed. SO they must have done SOMETHING right.

And what that is, I'll never know.

Don't get me wrong, I love the edition despite it's flaws. I just don't know what it is they did right.

I also like 4e. That I actually know why I like. The large amount of options with the vast majority of them being balanced.

DragoonWraith
2010-10-02, 12:46 AM
3 of the half-dozen or so most powerful classes ever printed are in Core (Cleric, Druid, and Wizard - the Sorcerer is not far behind).

3 of the weakest half-dozen or so least powerful printed are in Core (Fighter, Monk, and Paladin - the Soulknife too, if you count XPH as "Core")

In a nutshell, this is the big problem.

There are others.

Liekurmomma
2010-10-02, 01:22 AM
Which edition/ version do you mean, are do you just mean in d20 general?

NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 01:26 AM
3.5e

Sorry.

But I like these points.

I do consider Psionics Core.

Samm
2010-10-02, 01:40 AM
I think there are a number of things wrong with the core classes. At one end of the Core Classes, you have guys that ooze power in insane quantities. At the other end, you have classes that are pretty much useless. It's very unfortuante. The sad thing is, to make the lower tier characters viable at higher levels, you really need to optimise them quite well, and even then, the casters are still more powerful. When you have people that can rearrange the universe, as opposed to a bunch of guys who are "good" (but not really) at hitting things with metal pointy sticks and they're all supposed to be balanced, there is a problem.

Coidzor
2010-10-02, 01:40 AM
Soulknives should go die in a fire because their entire class is a weapon and a feat, basically.

And Kensai does it better.

GoatBoy
2010-10-02, 01:52 AM
The core classes were trying to both accommodate as many of the "classic fantasy hero" archetypes as possible while keeping the rules simple.

At first glance, a person uneducated in the d20 system couldn't really see a thematic difference between a Fighter, a Knight, and a Warblade. But the Fighter is easiest to work with whereas the others were designed to fill in specific roles that weren't really researched until after the system had been in use for a few years.

The core casters meant to evoke a sense of "spellbooks full of arcane secrets" or "countless miracles of the divine" so having each effect as a separate spell didn't feel so bad at first. But as more types of monsters or traps or options for opponents were developed, the classes with no effective ceiling on their available options had that many more to work with, while core combat-based classes were still limited by available feats (which have to be balanced against each other) or class features (which make up far less of the core classes overall effectiveness compared to later classes).

The massive disparity in core is just the sign of a system that had yet to figure itself out.

NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 02:10 AM
Soulknives should go die in a fire because their entire class is a weapon and a feat, basically.

And Kensai does it better.

Yeah. That, right there, is horribly unhelpful and the sort of knee-jerk response that makes me want to open some portals to Baator.

What is /wrong/ with it? /Why/ is it weak?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-02, 02:16 AM
Because their sole class feature is an enhanced weapon that lags behind everyone else. Think of everything that's wrong with Fighter, then lower the B.A.B. and give it more flavorful bonus feats.

Kylarra
2010-10-02, 02:42 AM
On the other hand, people are still playing it years after Fourth Edition came out. Case in point, this thread. No mention of what edition either then mentioning the SRD, yet we know what this thread is about and many have already contributed. SO they must have done SOMETHING right.I suspect it has less to do with doing something right and more to do with being a forum for a webcomic about D&D personally.


@OP- I think we could be more helpful if you were to provide more context for what you're looking for rather than a generic "rant about the [im]balance of core" thread.

Coidzor
2010-10-02, 02:57 AM
Because their sole class feature is an enhanced weapon that lags behind everyone else. Think of everything that's wrong with Fighter, then lower the B.A.B. and give it more flavorful bonus feats.

Also, he can never enchant his weapon as fully as an equivalent character even once he finally gets it.

You can get up to a +10 pre-epic weapon via money and xp expenditures.

You can only get up to a +9 with a mindblade. And are limited to the table of enhancements with the class, apparently.

And your ability to use it at range doesn't matter because it limits you to at most two ranged attacks even if you had full BAB and that's if you had the mindblade out at the start of the turn. Subsequent rounds you only get one per round. And you can't get it out except as a move action until 5th level, so you're delayed more than other characters who can at least draw their weapon as part of a move action once they have a point of BAB.

And what's more, the weapon they get is really crappy until they hit fifth level, then they can choose between two sword-and-board options.

Kantolin
2010-10-02, 03:28 AM
We're extremely low-optimization (Fighters are considered unfair due to damage), and well... even in our group, the soulknife is kinda laughable.

If you assume that the soulknife's weapon and psychic strike is as good as a fighter's bought weapon and feats, then the soulknife has less armour and less base attack bonus. This means he can't tank terribly well (needs a high dex to match), can't hit as often, doesn't get two swings at level 6...

I mean. In this game, we started at level 3 and got literally not a single piece of gear until level 8, and the soulknife still lagged irritatingly far behind until he went soulbow, in which he started to... well, function.

The soulknife just doesn't /do/ anything. It's not even an incompetent mobile fighter like the monk is - it's a fighter that's less effective at being a fighter with a free weapon that doesn't scale as quickly as money. They get mildly more effective compared to a fighter if the fighter is incredibly poorly geared, but then um, all martial units rather fall off the relevance wagon without gear.

A fighter with the same weapon and plusses as the soulknife is nigh-guaranteed to be more effective than that soulknife, and that's kinda sad.

Unless you live in tied-up-and-thrown-into-jail-in-antimagic-field-land, where the soulknife reigns supreme lord and master over most things with his +5 weapon. ^_^

And everything stated above is very, very low-optimization (Our DM constantly used to throw creatures with spell resistance to counter my wizard, since that's what you do to counter a wizard, even though I was very strictly a buffer wizard... all our wizards throw unmodified fireballs). I mean, we find a lot of use out of many of the more poor classes, but soulknife just edges a little too low.

Dark_Nohn
2010-10-02, 03:34 AM
The big ticket about soulknives is their big dice 1-shot Psychic Strikes, which is a small fistfull of dice without all of the limitations of sneak attacks...
But to a lesser extent Psionic Shot and Psionic Weapons feats are more effective
Disregard that, they can stack, and with the mind cleave feat.
Well, all you're good for is one retardedly powerful shot every few turns.
If it didn't require a free hand to launch the arrows, I'd make a soulbow that would gain psionic focus every other turn, and say something to the effect of "Charging Lazors"

HunterOfJello
2010-10-02, 03:39 AM
The problem with the Monk and Soulknife is that their main class feature is a weapon that increases at a strictly controlled rate. Also, the weapons increase at a slower rate than a normal melee character's weapons.

For instance, a Monk doesn't get unarmed attack damage of 1d10 until level 8. A dwarf Fighter can attack with a one-handed 1d10 weapon at level 1.

A monk's Flurry of Blows is better than their standard attack, but it's really only a terrible level dependent version of Two-Weapon Fighting. And when you stop taking monk levels, the ability stops being worthwhile all together.

~

Barbarians have lots of issues in their core-only incarnation. Thankfully, many alternate class features have been released for the class to improve them signifigantly.

A barbarian can hit hard and has some decent class features for his first two levels, but gets hardly anything good after that. With such a limited number of feats the barbarian could get into the Power Attack line to use Sunder, Overrun or Bullrush in fights, but these options aren't very useful in the long run.

The class has 0 versatility to it.

~

Rogues aren't too terrible at filling their role as the party skillmonkey and occasional damage dealer, but work out to be glass cannons that have to get too close for comfort to actually attack.

With the limitations on sneak attack, rogues can become almost completely useless in many situations.

They also suffer from feat taxes in the form of Weapon Finesse and Two-Weapon Fighting OR Point-Blank Shot and Rapid-Shot (nevermind Precise Shot). A rogue who hasn't taken 2 of the feats from one of those lines is severely weakened and does half as much damage as he would if he had taken them.

The class also becomes less useful and meaningful over time as enemies become strong enough to kill the rogue in 2 blows. Their large skill point number can help outside of combat, but they lack versatility.

~

The Ranger displays several problems with the game mechanics themselves. He has access to two combat styles that he can progress in: Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery. Unfortuantely, both of those combat methods are highly ineffective in 3.5e.

Ranged weapons allow no bonus damage from ability scores as melee weapons do with the exception of the Composite Bows which require 2 different ability scores to enhance. Dexterity is needed to hit and Strength is needed to improve composite bow damage. (Note: In the games I DM, bows get free damage based on strength and crossbows have free damage based on dexterity. I think this is at least a decent quick fix for the problem.)

Two-Weapon Fighting's shortcomings don't require too much explanation. You do melee attacks that are less damaging and useful than using a Greatsword instead.

The Ranger does have some ACFs that improve them signifigantly. Mystic Ranger and alternate combat styles (especially Power Attack) can help them quite a bit.

It's also sad to see the Ranger get such a slow and weak spell progression, not to mention Animal Companion progression, compared to a Druid who is very similar and obviously has a massive upperhand combared to the Ranger.

~

Lets see, that leaves the Paladin and the Fighter.

Paladin is an NPC class in my campaigns and I refuse to acknowledge their existence as far as PCs are concerned.

The Prestige Paladin and several Cleric PRCs exist that emulate the spirit of the paladin and should be paid attention to instead.

~

Last and almost least, the Fighter is terrible and just gets bonus feats. Bonus feats are not a substitute for decent class features. They never have been and they probably never will be.

If the Fighter got 4 times as many bonus feats and could choose from any list, then they might be more viable, but no DM is likely to allow that anyway.

Morph Bark
2010-10-02, 05:17 AM
Soulknives should go die in a fire because their entire class is a weapon and a feat, basically.

Gestalt Souknife//Soulborn - what Tier would it be if no other classes were gestalted?

Coidzor
2010-10-02, 05:26 AM
Gestalt Souknife//Soulborn - what Tier would it be if no other classes were gestalted?

What is the numerical value of my tears?

Greenish
2010-10-02, 05:42 AM
Gestalt Souknife//Soulborn - what Tier would it be if no other classes were gestalted?4-5. It's still worse in melee than an incarnate, I suspect, and still lacks other options.

[Edit]: There is a homebrew fix or two that combine the two classes.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-02, 05:47 AM
Rogue problems:

Sneak attack is the class's only significant combat capability, and it fails in quite a few situations:

target immune to critical hits
target can't be flanked
target is more than 30' away
target has concealment
can't reach the target's vitals

Stealth is supposed to be a Rogue strength, but the Rogue lacks all of the following:

a way to see when it's dark, to avoid stumbling about movement penalties
ways to avoid detection by scent, tremorsense, blindsight, & c.
class features to bypass the two Hide requirements (cover/concealment, not being observed)

One class feature that's largely useless: trap sense. (The Rogue is the character class least likely to set off traps accidentally.)
Some of the above weaknesses can be shored up by feats, but the Rogue has no bonus feats.
Class skills dependent on 5 out of 6 of the D&D attributes. :smallmad:

holywhippet
2010-10-02, 06:11 AM
One of the big problems with the fighter classes is that a cleric can use the divine power spell to get the same BAB, plus another +6 to strength. Aside from the lower HP, that makes them as good if not better than a fighter. Of course, that is just one single spell - if they cast some others they can be even better.

Monks as a straight class have a lot of abilities that are generally only useful in rare circumstances. That being said, if you abuse the heck out of multiclassing and presitge classes you can get a really high damage rating since a number of classes give a size bonus to natural weapons. Of course, you BAB still won't be crash hot.

Rogues aren't actually as bad off in melee as people think. Their BAB progression is only 3/4, but sneak attack damage bridges the gap a lot. It might seem that the rogue will have problems since they aren't proficient in anything heavier than light armour, but AFAIK the only combat ability affected by wearing heavier armour is evasion. They can either multiclass or spend a feat to get heavy armour proficiency and only have to worry if they need to make a reflex save.

Note of course that a low level game of D&D doesn't really throw up most of the flaws/strengths of the character classes. Monks are one of the few exceptions since their AC will still suck as a rule.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-02, 07:11 AM
Rogues aren't actually as bad off in melee as people think. It might seem that the rogue will have problems since they aren't proficient in anything heavier than light armour, but AFAIK the only combat ability affected by wearing heavier armour is evasion. They can either multiclass or spend a feat to get heavy armour proficiency and only have to worry if they need to make a reflex save.
Have you noticed the skills affected by Armor Check Penalty (Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Tumble) are all Rogue class skills? Those skills have significant combat utility, and spending a precious feat just so you can penalize all 8 of them at once seems like an extremely effective way to handicap a Rogue character. :smallyuk:

Morph Bark
2010-10-02, 07:31 AM
4-5. It's still worse in melee than an incarnate, I suspect, and still lacks other options.

True, I suppose.

Hmm... what if you'd also put the Monk and the OA Samurai (less feats than the Fighter and more thematically appropriate) in there for Soulborn//Soulknife//Monk//OA Samurai?

You'd basically have a little meldshaping, a free magic weapon (ruled to be a Monk weapon that is also affected by the Samurai's weapon-enhancing rituals for eventually some massive bonuses from that plus the Soulknife enhancements), a bunch of feats (plus a ton of useless Monk stuff), all Good saves, good BAB, 4 skill points/level and a d10 HD. Oh, and of course modified so that the Monk Wis bonus to AC still kicks in when in light armour and lose the heavier armour proficiencies that the other classes give.

Or would that still only make it a good dip class and nothing in the direction of Tier 3?


Class skills dependent on 5 out of 6 of the D&D attributes. :smallmad:

This is the least of the Rogue's "problems" I'd say. There's only so many class skills, sooner or later you're going to have to add class skills that fall outside the usual ability scores you invest in for that class. Besides, the Factotum has class skills dependant on 6 out of 6 of the D&D attributes (even more if you add more attributes with skills keyed to them) and it hurts them none.

Fawsto
2010-10-02, 08:20 AM
I will agree with the versatility issue.

Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues and Monks all have some degree of lack of versatility. Casters on the other hand, in a ideal scenario, can look for spells to solve almost if not all problems.

A breakdown:

Fighters can only do 1 thing and 1 thing only: Hit stuff, and they do not do it very well most of times. Seriously, a class that at level 20 can be defeated by a CR 3 Shadow has a serious problem.

Paladins have their best features all loaded up in the first 6 levels then they start repeating themselves. Those "best" features are not even that good. Smite gets a special mension (if there was a list of the worst class features intended for combat, Smite Evil would be the first and there would be no 2nd place just to show how serious it is). Also, they can only fight. The Code... Ahhh the Code: A good way to make the class even less versatile.

Ranger does a little better, since it *may* work inside and outside combat. However, their combat styles plainly suck.

Monks... Well, we know about monks.

Barbarians and Rogues can play ther niches well. But only their niches, nothing else.

This is a little exageration, of course.

Cheers

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-10-02, 08:49 AM
Class skills dependent on 5 out of 6 of the D&D attributes. :smallmad:
I tend not to see this as a problem, in part for the same reasons M-Bark mentioned.

Additionally, it actually helps allow customization, which is a Strength. Even at 8 + Int skill points per level, a rogue is not going to be getting all class skills. So you wind up having to decide what Rogue Archetype you want to build too. And the great thing is that most Archetypes have a skill set that fall almost entirely within one or two ability scores. The Con-man only really needs Charisma. The Burglar doesn’t need much more than Dexterity. The Dungeoneer needs Intelligence and Dexterity. And so on.

Furthermore, unless your scores are extreme, ability modifiers have very little effect on skills. Even at 1st level, maxed out skill ranks outstrip the modifiers from anything that’s not an 18 or higher. In the long-view, ability modifiers don’t mean much.

true_shinken
2010-10-02, 08:59 AM
True, I suppose.
I disagree, but I believe tier 4 is the best middle ground rather than tier 3, so that might explain why.




This is the least of the Rogue's "problems" I'd say.
I agree.



There's only so many class skills, sooner or later you're going to have to add class skills that fall outside the usual ability scores you invest in for that class.
Also agreed.



Besides, the Factotum has class skills dependant on 6 out of 6 of the D&D attributes (even more if you add more attributes with skills keyed to them) and it hurts them none.
Now I disagree. Factotum gets at level 3 an ability that allows him to completly ignore two of this stats - Str and Dex. So it's 4 out of 6. It's still better than the Rogue.

Morph Bark
2010-10-02, 12:22 PM
Now I disagree. Factotum gets at level 3 an ability that allows him to completly ignore two of this stats - Str and Dex. So it's 4 out of 6. It's still better than the Rogue.

Oh, I know, but 4 out of 6 is still close, and if you play with more skills and attributes (like Comeliness or something of the sort), then the Factotum sprints ahead again. I am fully aware that the Factotum is a far better skillmonkey than the Rogue in general (unless if you focus on Wis and Cha skills that the Rogue has, but only then), but I moreso meant for what I said regarding it to underline the point that having a lot of skills on your list that depend on different attributes is not necessarily that bad. Admittably, the Factotum is the poorest choice I could've gone with, but it springs to mind more easily - especially since I don't know the Scout's/Ninja's/Spellthief's/Beguiler's/Bard's skill list by heart.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-02, 12:27 PM
Yeah. That, right there, is horribly unhelpful and the sort of knee-jerk response that makes me want to open some portals to Baator.

What is /wrong/ with it? /Why/ is it weak?

The soulknife's signature feature (indeed, where he gets his name) can be largely replicated with money.

NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 02:27 PM
Soulknife is weak because his magical weapon lags behind money. Fighter because it, despite being very versatile buildwise, is pretty much a one trick pony. Barb is weak because it has no versatility. Pally is front loaded and has horrible casting. Rogue because it has relatively poor survivability (theoretically speaking: practice is something else) and there are many ways to bypass its combat move of awesome.

Is that about right?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-02, 02:32 PM
Of all of them, though, Rogues have the most options, thanks to Use Magical Device. Nothing like TWF sneak-attacking undead using wands of wraithstrike to make your shizz into touch attacks.

The others, though, blow for more or less the reasons described.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-02, 05:00 PM
Nothing like TWF sneak-attacking undead using wands of wraithstrike to make your shizz into touch attacks.
Wraithstrike makes your melee attacks resolve as touch attacks, but you still can't sneak attack undead. And wands (plural) won't work together even if you add Grave Strike to let you sneak attack undead, because you'd still have to pick just one each round; they both require a swift action (1 per round) and only last 1 round.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-02, 05:01 PM
Wraithstrike makes your melee attacks resolve as touch attacks, but you still can't sneak attack undead. And wands (plural) won't work together even if you add Grave Strike to let you sneak attack undead, because you'd still have to pick just one each round; they both require a swift action (1 per round) and only last 1 round.

Double Wand Wielder + Wandstrike should solve that.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-02, 05:15 PM
Double Wand Wielder + Wandstrike should solve that.
Those are incompatible feats. Double Wand Wielder requires a full-round action and Wandstrike requires a standard action. Wandstrike is also explicitly incompatible with sneak attack.

Maybe you were thinking of some other feats instead?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-02, 05:17 PM
Make a ring of gravestrike. Profit as undead hunter.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-02, 05:18 PM
Those are incompatible feats. Double Wand Wielder requires a full-round action and Wandstrike requires a standard action. Wandstrike is also explicitly incompatible with sneak attack.

Maybe you were thinking of some other feats instead?

I was referring to the Cannith Wand Adept class feature, not the feat.

Zaydos
2010-10-02, 05:18 PM
There's a greater weapon crystal that allows sneak attacks on undead, and one that works on constructs.

Captain Six
2010-10-02, 05:40 PM
Rangers have one often overlooked ability. Their two-weapon fighting progression gives them two-weapon fighting feats while ignoring the crazy-high dexterity requirement so they can actually put their highest stat into strength to deal some damage. With dips in Exotic Weapon Master and Tempest with the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and who knows what else two weapon fighting penalties CAN be reduced to -0 for two bastard swords(or similar). Two-weapon fighting has a lot of various other stealth fixes and can be made viable compared to two-handed fighting, and the best class I know to start with a two-weapon fighter is a Ranger.

ericgrau
2010-10-02, 05:58 PM
+1 to versatility issue as the common reason for complaint.

Though IMO it's totally great for everyone to have different roles, and I don't mind that part. It also becomes a matter of combat boredom unless both the player and DM dig deep into the rules. Even terrain can make martial combat pretty fun. IMO the caster has fun from his own abilities, whose rules he already read in the spell description, but the warrior has fun by being able to do more with the world, whose rules are on page 123 of one of the two books which you and your DM might not have read or you forgot. Then flat-world = life sucks for the warrior. For skillmonkeys too. Now if the flat-world warrior's lucky and he remembers the breaking and entering rules, he might get lucky enough for a caster to say "wall of stone" to which he says "Haha, I smash your puny wall." But more likely he'll say "Darn, a wall, I guess I can't go that way. Umm, I'll hit that other guy for 47."

Greenish
2010-10-02, 06:12 PM
Rangers have one often overlooked ability. Their two-weapon fighting progression gives them two-weapon fighting feats while ignoring the crazy-high dexterity requirement so they can actually put their highest stat into strength to deal some damage. With dips in Exotic Weapon Master and Tempest with the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and who knows what else two weapon fighting penalties CAN be reduced to -0 for two bastard swords(or similar). Two-weapon fighting has a lot of various other stealth fixes and can be made viable compared to two-handed fighting, and the best class I know to start with a two-weapon fighter is a Ranger.True enough, Ranger 2 is an excellent dip for starting a TWFer, but a straight ranger's TWF isn't anything to write home about.

Anyhow, when speaking of TWF builds, the PrC to be mentioned above others is Revenant Blade from PGtE.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-02, 07:00 PM
I was referring to the Cannith Wand Adept class feature, not the feat.
Dual Wand Use also requires a full-round action, so that's incompatible with pretty much anything else. And because it requires a minimum 2-level PrC dip I don't see how that improves the Rogue's sneak attack options. Remember, Lord_Gareth was wanting to sneak attack undead with a full round of touch attacks.

NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 07:05 PM
... How about you can get Sneak Attack on Constructs and stuff if you can make a Knowledge check appropriately?

Dusk Eclipse
2010-10-02, 07:07 PM
Dual Wand Use also requires a full-round action, so that's incompatible with pretty much anything else. And because it requires a minimum 2-level PrC dip I don't see how that improves the Rogue's sneak attack options. Remember, Lord_Gareth was wanting to sneak attack undead with a full round of touch attacks.

that is easy, dual wield your favorite weapons, one modified with a wandchamber filled with wraithstrike.

now choose;

a)Take the Penetrating strike AFC in dungeonscape
b) put a greater truedeath crystal on you weapons

Use the above in the same round

Greenish
2010-10-02, 07:11 PM
now choose;

a)Take the Penetrating strike AFC in dungeonscape
b) put a greater truedeath crystal on you weaponsA offers only half SA damage, if my memory serves, and B is very uneconomical, needing two +3 weapons (not even +3 equivalent, but straight-up +3).

Dusk Eclipse
2010-10-02, 07:13 PM
I was listing ways to get SA on undead, though I agree with you on both points

Greenish
2010-10-02, 07:17 PM
I was listing ways to get SA on undead, though I agree with you on both pointsOh yeah, Penetrating Strike is something all rogues should take, and getting double greater crystals is possible.

holywhippet
2010-10-02, 07:18 PM
Have you noticed the skills affected by Armor Check Penalty (Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Tumble) are all Rogue class skills? Those skills have significant combat utility, and spending a precious feat just so you can penalize all 8 of them at once seems like an extremely effective way to handicap a Rogue character. :smallyuk:

I'd not use most of them in combat - and you can always just take the armour off when you need those skills. The penalties aren't that huge either - especially if you can manage to acquire some mithral armour - full plate is only a -3 penalty if you make it from mithral. A small price to pay for being hard to hit.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-02, 07:32 PM
I'd not use most of them in combat - and you can always just take the armour off when you need those skills. The penalties aren't that huge either - especially if you can manage to acquire some mithral armour - full plate is only a -3 penalty if you make it from mithral. A small price to pay for being hard to hit.
I think using Tumble to avoid attacks of opportunity from movement, and Acrobatic Backstab skill trick to give you a guaranteed sneak attack when you Tumble through an enemy, is much more important than getting a bit better at taking direct hits. The Move between Cover use of Hide will let you pop out from hiding, cross an unconcealed stretch of ground, and still make a sneak attack. Balance will let you move across difficult or obstructed terrain at full speed while your opponents suffer movement penalties. Sleight of Hand will let you grab an enemy spellcaster's component pouch or holy symbol, greatly reducing their combat effectiveness. Climb and Jump can let you get on top of a nearby table, rock, or low ledge, giving you the +1 "on higher ground" bonus to all your melee attacks. A Dexterity-based Escape Artist check (where you add your skill ranks) can get you out of a grapple better than a Strength-based grapple check (where you only add your BAB).

I'd use every single one of these skills in combat.

NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 07:34 PM
Find a good way to increase Rogue survivability. Right. >>

Soranar
2010-10-02, 07:53 PM
I don't know why people would play 3.5 core only over 4rth (assuming we're talking about player's handbook 1 and 2, dm handbook 1 and 2)

but 3.5 with the splatbooks (just the WOTC stuff) is far more versatile than 4rth in flavor (nearly any class can be optimized up to tier 3 unless they started higher)

and even in core there are ways to optimize smite evil: mostly just using a lance with the proper mounted combat feats to multiply it's damage (2 with a lance, 3 with the proper feat, 4x with the proper magic weapon)

but without the splatbook options to reduce MAD in most classes, I'd just forget about them unless we actually rolled our characters and I got a really high total (Monk, PAladin and Ranger)

Ranger might not need DEX for his feats but he needs it for AC anyway
Fighters have no skillpoints or class features beyond weapon specialization

as for PrCs in core that are mostly useless:

arcane archer can be replaced by a magic bow (also makes you get a caster level for no reason)

Arcane Trickster is nice but has hilariously high requisites

Blackguard forces you to take useless feats for mediocre abilities

Dragon Disciple is a fighter PrC without full BAB and with caster requirements

Duelist is utterly useless

Dwarven Defender makes you pick a race, an alignment, bad feats (which force you to not to dump certain stats) just to get mediocre abilities

Samm
2010-10-02, 07:54 PM
Maybe increase their hitdice, and give them some kind of boost to AC. Basically, they need better armour proficiency, and hitpoints or some kind of ability that grants extra AC. That would make them more survivable.

Gametime
2010-10-02, 08:02 PM
I'd use every single one of these skills in combat.

Not to mention the number of encounters where you might need one of those skills without it being related to the combat itself. Climbing a rope while fleeing from orcs, balancing on a rickety bridge while being shot at by arrows, tumbling out of a window to reduce fall damage before the guards break through the door you barricaded while you assassinated a lord...

There are lots of reasons why it's a poor plan to assume you'll have several uninterrupted minutes to take off or put on armor.

Lev
2010-10-02, 08:42 PM
How Can It Be Fixed?

Tael
2010-10-02, 08:43 PM
I find nothing wrong with the rogue, and sometimes the barb if done right. I find the barbarian is perfect for the guy who doesn't want to bother much with mechanics, but just likes to smack people hard. A lot of core classes get a lot of splatbook love, which can mitigate the suffering, but I would never play a Fighter or Paladin for more than 6 levels at the very most. The PF Paladin is a very different story though. I recent built a Cleric 1/Mystic Fire Knight PF Paladin 5 that completely outshines the rest of the party, which includes a reasonable optimized Whisper Gnome Rogue, and a Transmuter specialist (also a druid, but he forgets to prepare spells, chooses a really bad companion, and plinks with a bow.) The Paladin was the best thing PF did, but the rogue also gets a pretty nice boost I find.

NineThePuma
2010-10-02, 08:53 PM
As Lev said, how would you fix this?

And, if you think Path Finder did it better, Path Finder material is ALSO OGC (well, core is) so you can start with that base.

Grommen
2010-10-02, 09:02 PM
It always amazes me the difference between how people play the game and how it looks on paper.

So in all the time I have played 3 and 3.5 the following characters have caused me fits to DM...

#1 A dwarven fighter. Not kidding. Had Iron will, specializations, greater spec, big old two handed axe, 200+ HP's. I could not find things that it could not chop up in a few rounds. Soloed a Maralith at 18th level, in one round. Might be common for other games but that was when I tossed up the white flag on that game.

#2 A halfling Monk that was played at low levels. I'll agree his chance to hit things was pathetic, but due to a 20 DEX and 14 WIS, and a very poorly placed Amulet of Natural Armor he just never got hit. And had the best saves in the group.

My weakest classes? Wizards and Sorcs. It is not acceptable for a wizard to know all and see all. They are not walking omnipotent knowers of all things. We were consistently getting our wizards killed, because wile they have fantastic defenses and offensive spells. Getting the right one at the right time just never happened.

3.5 versions of Palidians....I have to agree they suck. Fighters with less feats and rules that no one could really live by (including the knights that they are biased on in Real Life). And that hole Pokey ball thing for a mount. Total BS. Do they really need to keep a second horse around because after a few hours their mount will just poof? Coarse we house ruled some things and used the Quinennsial Palidian from Mongoose and they turned out ok.

I abused the world with a cleric once. Vowed never to out fight the fighter, out cast the wizard, and detect traps better than the rogue. Cleric/ Hospitlar rocked :) So they are my vote for best class in 3.5

Now I'm not saying that everyone plays wrong. Far from it. 3.5 is versital enough to accomplish so much. Ya their are problems. That is why you elect a DM. It's their job to bring balance to the classes.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-02, 10:53 PM
As Lev said, how would you fix this?

Well, I'd start (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132683) here (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=d20_Rebirth).

Morithias
2010-10-02, 11:06 PM
I say the internet is the main thing wrong with the core classes. No seriously hear me out. Before the net, if you wanted to play a broken wizard, you had to make the build yourself. Now it's basically "look up build, make build, kick ass".

How many of their tier 1 out-shine-the-whole party builds has your average Dnd 3.5 player actually made themselves?

Zaq
2010-10-02, 11:11 PM
I say the internet is the main thing wrong with the core classes. No seriously hear me out. Before the net, if you wanted to play a broken wizard, you had to make the build yourself. Now it's basically "look up build, make build, kick ass".

How many of their tier 1 out-shine-the-whole party builds has your average Dnd 3.5 player actually made themselves?

I take it no one in your party has ever made a Druid, then.

Zaydos
2010-10-02, 11:14 PM
Wizard/Druid.

His animal companion out shone the entire party.

Morithias
2010-10-02, 11:20 PM
I take it no one in your party has ever made a Druid, then.

Actually no they haven't. We all hate nature themed stuff. Our best campaigns are always the evil ones where we burn the forests to the ground, or force enslaved citizens to labor for us.

We see Druids as glorified hippies.

Gametime
2010-10-02, 11:38 PM
#2 A halfling Monk that was played at low levels. I'll agree his chance to hit things was pathetic, but due to a 20 DEX and 14 WIS, and a very poorly placed Amulet of Natural Armor he just never got hit. And had the best saves in the group.



The extra 7 AC made him unhittable? You can get more than that with non-magical armor. Admittedly, some guy in full plate will have lower saves, but he'll have a higher AC (assuming he still gets the amulet) and will, presumably, have some other stats pumped instead so he can, y'know, hit stuff.


Actually no they haven't. We all hate nature themed stuff. Our best campaigns are always the evil ones where we burn the forests to the ground, or force enslaved citizens to labor for us.

We see Druids as glorified hippies.

If by "glorified" you mean "capable of turning into a bear and mauling the crap out of people," then I'd basically agree with this sentiment.

I'm not sure the argument "The system is broken, but no one would know it was broken if it weren't for that gosh-darned information superhighway!" is really the most defensible position.

Tael
2010-10-02, 11:43 PM
I take it no one in your party has ever made a Druid, then.

Actually, I have seen a bad druid before. However, this was mostly just because the player was pretty terrible. The other 4 druids my group have seen have all been extremely useful, even when they weren't kicking ass. We were astounded when the druid's companion pretty much solo'd the boss the first time someone ever rolled one.

lsfreak
2010-10-02, 11:53 PM
I say the internet is the main thing wrong with the core classes. No seriously hear me out. Before the net, if you wanted to play a broken wizard, you had to make the build yourself. Now it's basically "look up build, make build, kick ass".

How many of their tier 1 out-shine-the-whole party builds has your average Dnd 3.5 player actually made themselves?

The other problem is accidentally outshining the whole party. The druid who realizes how powerful wild shape + his companion is, as mentioned. I've seen unoptimized groups suddenly dominated by a wizard that realizes that he CAN dominate, and is suddenly running around with 4 bodyguards each better than every other player. It also takes nothing more than a simple understanding of the rules to realize how much you can break with something like web or stinking cloud, or even having a monster use it against you randomly and suddenly realizing holy ****, this is powerful.

JaronK
2010-10-03, 12:59 AM
I say the internet is the main thing wrong with the core classes. No seriously hear me out. Before the net, if you wanted to play a broken wizard, you had to make the build yourself. Now it's basically "look up build, make build, kick ass".

How many of their tier 1 out-shine-the-whole party builds has your average Dnd 3.5 player actually made themselves?

You know, I actually made that whole tiers thing specifically because of seeing it happen in real play. Repeatedly. And it was never just to be a jerk or intentionally ruin things... it was either totally in character (hey, this spell would totally solve our problem!) or someone just walked into something and suddenly another player felt useless. Your idea here is security through obscurity... if we don't tell people how to break characters, they won't do it. The problem is that many people do exactly that, but then their DMs never saw it coming.

Telling people there's a problem helps solve the problem. Hiding it continues the problem.

JaronK

Coidzor
2010-10-03, 01:23 AM
aye, more information can really only make things better and help prevent bad situations from occurring.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-03, 06:08 PM
If you're looking at the entire SRD, the Epic Mystic Theurge is the worst class of them all.

This bears repeating, if for no other reason that there is no other class or PrC in the entire of 3.5 (or pretty much any derivative) that so utterly defeats it's own entire point as the epic Mystic Theurge.

Greenish
2010-10-03, 06:12 PM
This bears repeating, if for no other reason that there is no other class or PrC in the entire of 3.5 (or pretty much any derivative) that so utterly defeats it's own entire point as the epic Mystic Theurge.I just looked it up. What were they thinking? :confused::mad::eek:

Curmudgeon
2010-10-03, 06:51 PM
I just looked it up. What were they thinking? :confused::mad::eek:
Let's see. In addition to a spellcasting progression that's no more than what you'd get if you alternated levels in the arcane and divine classes you started in, you get:

The minimum number of skill points at each level.
The minimum hit die.
A bonus feat allotment below the minimum for all other classes.
No class special abilities whatsoever.
What's there to complain about? :yuk:

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-03, 07:04 PM
I just looked it up. What were they thinking? :confused::mad::eek:

I honestly have no idea.

Even on the most cursory examination, Epic MT is clearly inferior to any of the base caster classes you'd start regular MT from. I genuinely cannot understand how that could possibly have passed any kind of evaluation without anyone familar with 3.x spotting how daft that was and going "hang on a second...".

All I can conclude is that it simply was't evaluated, because it was either done in a rush for a deadline or at knocking off time; and the writer just didn't think at all about it.

DragoonWraith
2010-10-03, 07:29 PM
A lot of people thought that MT (the non-epic version) was overpowered early in 3.5. Could be that the guy who wrote it (who realized the limitations of the class at the time and in hindsight realized it was actually weak) didn't have a say on the ELH, and the guy who wrote the epic version felt that dual-progression was OP.

Coidzor
2010-10-03, 07:31 PM
Oh, Designers.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-03, 07:35 PM
Oh, Designers.

I'm reminded of an old-saw joke in the Warhammer community: "GW Game Designer Stat Profile: As human, but with BS 10. Suffers from Stupidity."

I guess it applies to more than just wargames.

Coidzor
2010-10-03, 07:43 PM
Do they get insulated from ever playing the game?

Or is it more they get stuck with the same group of people who always think in a certain way due to their area of focus?

Or, as suggested, it attracts and cultivates a certain type of mind?

Or just that none of us is as dumb as all of us combined with a potentially faulty chain of command leading to people thinking it's "not my department?"

NineThePuma
2010-10-03, 08:11 PM
Mystic Thyruge has already been accounted for.

... Suggestions on fixing Duelist?

Coidzor
2010-10-03, 08:14 PM
... Suggestions on fixing Duelist?

Flat out INT to defense rather than one per level for starters.

Giving them an actual capstone would be good.

Give them something analogous to goad or knight's challenge to represent them challenging someone or something to a one on one fight.

I'd say let them apply their weapon finesse with all weapons and then later on the ability to get INT to attack in addition to DEX or STR.

Maybe Robilar's gambit/combat reflexes as a bonus feat.

Maybe a sort of pouncing spring attack that allows multiple hits that counts them as flanked for the round for any allies?

An ability that lets them more easily avoid AoOs as they tumble through the ranks? Or maybe they are able to tumble their full move speed rather than half?

DragoonWraith
2010-10-03, 08:17 PM
I could see a half-decent "Diamond Mind Master" PrC (a la Bloodclaw Master) to replace the duelist. That'd be pretty cool.

NineThePuma
2010-10-03, 08:18 PM
Mix some Swashbuckler in there too? Int focus and apply to a bunch of stuff? (Damage, will, etc)

And I can't use Tome of Battle =| SRD only.

DragoonWraith
2010-10-03, 08:23 PM
Why not? The Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) and Maneuvers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) are all available for free straight from Wizards' website. Basically the only other thing you need to know is that you qualify for a maneuver with "Warblade X" at the same level a Wizard qualifies for a spell that is "Sorcerer/Wizard X" (half your class level, rounded up). There's some other specifics, which I'm not sure I'm allowed to divulge, but for a single-class Warblade, that's all you need.

And the Warblade himself makes a half-decent duelist, with plenty of Int synergy and access to both Diamond Mind and Iron Heart, which are pretty good for that kind of thing.

NineThePuma
2010-10-03, 08:35 PM
Warblade isn't OGC. =\

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-10-03, 08:48 PM
Warblade isn't OGC. =\
Good thing that Wizards owns the Warblade, then. It’s theirs to put on the web if they so choose.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-03, 08:49 PM
... Suggestions on fixing Duelist?

Voilà. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100936) :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-10-03, 08:52 PM
Good thing that Wizards owns the Warblade, then. It’s theirs to put on the web if they so choose.And a good thing they so chose. Almost makes up for the fighter they printed in PHB.

NineThePuma
2010-10-03, 09:01 PM
Warblade and ToB are not OGC. Ergo, I can't revamp them and include them in my system. I could build up a system from "scratch" that's similar but more in line with other classes, but that involves building a bunch of disciplines from scratch. =| I'd rather not do that.

@Fax: Oh mighty fax! I do not want to steal your stuff. Stop tempting me.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-10-03, 09:20 PM
Warblade and ToB are not OGC. Ergo, I can't revamp them and include them in my system.
Okay. Musta missed this part earlier.

DragoonWraith
2010-10-03, 09:36 PM
Didn't realize you were making your own system.

Anyway, I'm pretty convinced that a ToB-like system is pretty much the "One True Way" to do d20 melee.

NineThePuma
2010-10-03, 09:43 PM
It's "my own system" as much as any set of house rules, but if I include maneuvers it will require massive rehauls.

Note that I explicitly stated core in the title >>

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-10-03, 09:48 PM
Note that I explicitly stated core in the title >>
You asked what was wrong with the core classes in the titles. Warblade was an example of how to do something right. :smallwink:

Plus, when you ask questions without explaining why it is framed a certain way, you gotta expect some topic drift.

NineThePuma
2010-10-03, 09:55 PM
Topic drift is fine.

"Just be a warblade" @ Fighter is... Less so.

Coidzor
2010-10-03, 10:28 PM
Didn't realize you were making your own system.

Anyway, I'm pretty convinced that a ToB-like system is pretty much the "One True Way" to do d20 melee.

I'm curious as to whether it'd be possible to hybridize some of the ideas of powers from 4e with the maneuver system myself...

But even adding in more ability to effect others in melee without buying up long feat chains would be good.

DragoonWraith
2010-10-03, 10:43 PM
Topic drift is fine.

"Just be a warblade" @ Fighter is... Less so.
I disagree. The Warblade is "Fighter-that-works", and therefore very on topic. Whether as a suggestion for a replacement, or for inspiration for your own stuff.

ranagrande
2010-10-04, 12:20 AM
Let's see...

For the Duelist, the simple and easy solution is to give it the benefits of the Blade Bravo prestige class from Races of Stone.

However, I think it would be more fun to give the Duelist MAD. I would give it its own version of Flourish, which would allow the Duelist to feint in combat to gain his charisma modifier to his AC in addition to dex and int (and Wis if he's a monk, and con if he's a Deepwarden, and con again if he's a Fist of the Forest).

Give him a Flourishing Strike ability, usable once per day per class level that lets him add his charisma modifier to his attack score and does +1d6 damage.

And give him an additional ability, Humiliating Strike (so named because it hurts his opponent's pride more than anything else), that allows him to trade half of the total damage of an attack to do one point of temporary charisma damage to his target. It would only work on creatures with an Intelligence of 3 or higher.

So that's that.

Now for the Fighter!

It could use some additional features. At 5th level and every 6 levels after that, I would allow the Fighter to add one point to any one ability score that is a prerequisite for a feat he possesses.

Add in some special Fighter Training every 9 levels. Choose one, hit points or skill points. The Fighter gains an amount of them equal to his Fighter class level.

As we all know, the real strength of the Fighter is his bonus feats. That is also the class's biggest weakness. Feats just don't scale very well when compared with other class abilities. The highest level exclusive Fighter feats available, in PHB2, are decidedly weak.

To fix the Fighter, the Fighter needs better feats.

For instance, at 20th level, a Fighter should be deciding whether he wants to wield two weapons in each hand or to wear a suit of light armor under a suit of medium armor under a suit of heavy armor, with all of the bonuses stacking.

NineThePuma
2010-10-04, 12:35 AM
The feats are going to be more aggressive and strong. 2WF is going to be reworked (debating whether it's single feat or not. I'm leaning not). Archery is gonna get a chunk of feats cut out and condensed.

For the fighter, I was considering giving the ability to decide, at any given even level, the ability to claim two feats, as long as one of his current feats is a prerequisite for one of those.

What's up with Shadow Dancer?

Reynard
2010-10-04, 12:42 AM
There was a superfeat system floating around, where multiple rather lame feats were merged into just one.

Can find it at the moment, but it was one of them more prominent members of the forum, so it shouldn't be long before they/it turns up.

Godskook
2010-10-04, 12:42 AM
Take a look at my Ascendant feats. They were an attempt at raising 3.5's melee baseline without giving large boons to gishes or full-casters. Primarily, its a fighter feat fix, but at the same time, you could take them on a rogue just as easily, but you'd be feat-starved.

thegurullamen
2010-10-04, 02:34 AM
Couldn't the fighter be fixed by writing a bunch of new feats for it where the prereqs are "Fighter level 8/10/12/14/16/18/20"? You know, level and role-appropriate feats? They'd essentially be class features but, if there were enough, you could choose your own and have a fighter that was actually different from other fighters without giving up...

I was going to say functionality, but it doesn't seem right using that word to describe fighters.

Samm
2010-10-04, 02:38 AM
Well, speaking of the Fighter, why don't you have a look at my homebrew. I try to give the everything that was good about him, bonus feats, and a lot more stuff. I don't give him martial manouvres and stances though, but for the fighter, I believe it represents a significant power boost. It is still in the process of critiquing and editing though.

The link is in my sig.

Koury
2010-10-04, 03:40 AM
Couldn't the fighter be fixed by writing a bunch of new feats for it where the prereqs are "Fighter level 8/10/12/14/16/18/20"? You know, level and role-appropriate feats? They'd essentially be class features but, if there were enough, you could choose your own and have a fighter that was actually different from other fighters without giving up...

I was going to say functionality, but it doesn't seem right using that word to describe fighters.

Of course, a Warblade could get all but the very top tier of them anyway, making him still superior.

Unless you buried them in so many prereqs only Fighters could ever get them, I suppose.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-04, 06:09 AM
It always amazes me the difference between how people play the game and how it looks on paper.

So in all the time I have played 3 and 3.5 the following characters have caused me fits to DM...

#1 A dwarven fighter. Not kidding. Had Iron will, specializations, greater spec, big old two handed axe, 200+ HP's. I could not find things that it could not chop up in a few rounds. Soloed a Maralith at 18th level, in one round. Might be common for other games but that was when I tossed up the white flag on that game.

#2 A halfling Monk that was played at low levels. I'll agree his chance to hit things was pathetic, but due to a 20 DEX and 14 WIS, and a very poorly placed Amulet of Natural Armor he just never got hit. And had the best saves in the group.

I abused the world with a cleric once. Vowed never to out fight the fighter, out cast the wizard, and detect traps better than the rogue. Cleric/ Hospitlar rocked :) So they are my vote for best class in 3.5


I have to wonder if the rest of party or DM wasn't optimized.
A halfing monk = unhittable? Inconcievable!

2Handed Fighter = doing it right. See that was the thing you optimized well. Fighters can kill things: never an issue in discussion, but they can't do anything outside of their stick.

Orzel
2010-10-04, 06:36 AM
It's the subsystems: the combat system, the skill system, the magic system, and the psionic system. They are not balanced to teach other in almost any way and most core class only have real access and manipulation of one of them