ToB banned

[Flame of Anor]

My DM just banned Tome of Battle, and now I has a sad. For being overpowered, of course, and I suppose there's something to that, but there's no restriction on wizards/clerics/druids... :smallsigh: I was quite looking forward to playing a crusader, too. What are the most similar non-ToB classes? Paladin, I suppose. Knight? Anything else?

[NNescio]

Factotum for per-encounter abilities?

Alternatively, some sort of gish.

[Mando Knight]

DMM Persist Cleric.

[Seerow]

DMM Persist Cleric.

This or a Wizard gish.

[Gardener]

Knight's pretty nifty. Certainly moreso than Paladin. I say go with Knight. Or posibly Cleric - it does "champion of righteousness" better than the Paladin class, in all honesty.

[Lurkmoar]

My DM just banned Tome of Battle, and now I has a sad. For being overpowered, of course, and I suppose there's something to that, but there's no restriction on wizards/clerics/druids... :smallsigh: I was quite looking forward to playing a crusader, too. What are the most similar non-ToB classes? Paladin, I suppose. Knight? Anything else?

Roll a Druid. Limit your spell casting as you see fit and have fun with your shape shifting melee power.

That's just my two bits though. Would your DM try to keep putting moral restrictions on your Paladin?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Cleric with divine power and lots of buff spells.

[Gensh]

You have to take into account that most players who don't deliberately search for build advice online built blaster wizards and the like. Using ToB in such a game really would be overpowered. Showing your group what a caster can really do would be in poor taste. Rather than that, use this as a chance to play something you wouldn't otherwise. Go ahead and build that green star adept or elocator you've always wanted to play.

[Sylivin]

I'm guessing your campaigns stay mainly low level? I know I've been yelled at for my "overpowered" monk before at low levels. Heh heh, little do they know.

Psychic warrior is one of your better bets since they can wack things around and get some of the goodies of "spellcasting." Given the proper use of feats he can be either someone "tanky" or someone that just hack and slashes things. Of course, quite a few DMs that ban Tome of Battle also ban Psionics...

[Wyntonian]

I recommend making a bear riding his friend, who's also a bear, shooting bears out of bear. Then, when your dm starts learning to rapid-fire books, offer to retire the bearbearian for a crusader. If he denies you, make a full-fledged ClericZilla, and wait for him to beg you to play a crusader.

[Engine]

Play a Cleric, search another group for playing a Crusader.

[HunterOfJello]

You could play an ardent. Ardents can make pretty cool gishes and tanks, especially if you go into the right PrCs like Sanctified Mind.

[Metahuman1]

Play a core Druid with the following feats.

Human: Spell focus: Conjuration
1st: Augment Summon
3rd: Improved Initiative
6th: Natural Spell


And then what ever else you want. Have Fun making the Dm reconsider the Tome of Battle. :smallamused:

[Captain Caveman]

Paladin and go gray guard. Get the paladin force of good features without having to stop to pet every puppy.

[awa]

at some levels of optimization tob classes are overpowered ive played one game as a single class fighter using a war ax (with weapon specialization) and a shield and was balanced with the party sorcerer at level 9+ in a game like that upgrading to a tob class would have been overpowered now that was an extreme example but playing a low opp game is not wrong and suggesting he destroy the existing game balance by playing a cleric who persist divine power is certainly not going to fix the problem. Trying to force the dm to bow to your wishes by breaking the game over and over is the sign of a bad player.

[Welknair]

If Homebrew is allowed, I'd take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200735) PrC of mine. With the right spell choices, you can pull off a decent replica. Then again, as a PrC it'll require you to be playing a level 6+ character to be viable.

[Midnight_v]

Showing your group what a caster can really do would be in poor taste
Hmm... I hate to get off topic and you can pm the asnwer if you like but..
Why?
It seems to me that the most distasteful thing about the ToB is people perpetuating the lie that its "unbalanced" somehow.
We KNOW the core is unbalanced. . . and how we honestly get past that and avoid posts like this one when people geniunely don't know. Keep them ignorant? Confront them with the truth?
Either way sucks for the people coming and asking for help. I've never heard "try playing a monk" as advice before.


My DM just banned Tome of Battle, and now I has a sad. For being overpowered, of course, and I suppose there's something to that, but there's no restriction on wizards/clerics/druids... I was quite looking forward to playing a crusader, too. What are the most similar non-ToB classes? Paladin, I suppose. Knight? Anything else?
Couple questions.
1. What all sources do you have allowed?
2. What level are you at?
Answer those 2 and I will have you a melee build cranked out pretty quick
-----------------------------------------------
In a bubble though. I think you should play a Core cleric. I'd say play a druid or a psywar too, but I fear that playing a melee with nice things might just get "Core Only" dropped on you.
So yeah cut to the chase, play the core melee cleric:
DISCUSS IT WITH THE OTHER PLAYERS, maybe dm a game, it might be good for him to get behind the screeen some.

[agahii]

+1 for melee cleric, its better mechanically than paladin.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Arcane Gish, use either a Wizard-based build with Incantatrix 4 or the standard Sorcadin.

DMM Cleric, preferably either a LN Cleric of Zarus (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041203a) or a sword-and-board cold-themed Cleric with Persistent Ice Axe and the PH2 ACF for the Winter domain to put Snowsight on the entire party and keep Obscuring Snow active all day (Frostburn).

Druid, Natural Bond + Warbeast Fleshraker, Wild Cohort and dismiss the cohort to add the benefits to your animal companion instead, Wild Shape into something scary and use Share Spells with Bite of the Were____, get a Circlet of Rapid Casting and a Lesser Rod of Extend for Creeping Cold, use Produce Flame to make your melee attacks set opponents on fire, etc.

[Midnight_v]

Origin of Codzilla: by RaicalTaoist

"It bears saying: if up against a logic-impervious DM who thinks Core is balanced and Psionics , Warlocks, Binders, The Tome of Battle isn't, then the most powerful way to disprove that is to play a C.o.D. (Cleric or Druid). Noncore material will not be necessary unless you are going for pure overkill. So by all means, if you must win that argument, take you C.o.D. to town. Annihilate the opposition. Make the NPCs and other players scream "Oh no, it's C.o.D.zilla!!!!!" in badly dubbed English. Breathe radioactive fire. Knock down buildings. Then stomp out of the burning Tokyo that is the ruins of the game and swim off into the ocean, seeking a DM with some basic cognitive functions.

Awesome that this is still valid...
Thank you RadicalTaoist. You are my favorite Co guru of all time.

[awa]

you should keep in mind that deliberately making overpowered characters to get back at the dm is more likely just going to annoy him rather then get him to come around to your point of view.

[Flame of Anor]

Factotum for per-encounter abilities?

I'm probably going to bring one of those in.


Alternatively, some sort of gish.

Got one already. He is fun, though.


DMM Persist Cleric.

My cleric just got that feat...I'm really, really hoping he gets to keep it...


I'm guessing your campaigns stay mainly low level? I know I've been yelled at for my "overpowered" monk before at low levels. Heh heh, little do they know.

:smallbiggrin:

Not low levels, exactly, but pretty low-op definitely.


Psychic warrior is one of your better bets since they can wack things around and get some of the goodies of "spellcasting." Given the proper use of feats he can be either someone "tanky" or someone that just hack and slashes things. Of course, quite a few DMs that ban Tome of Battle also ban Psionics...

Yes, psionics are banned also.


I recommend making a bear riding his friend, who's also a bear, shooting bears out of bear. Then, when your dm starts learning to rapid-fire books, offer to retire the bearbearian for a crusader. If he denies you, make a full-fledged ClericZilla, and wait for him to beg you to play a crusader.

I'm not trying to beat the DM into submission here.


Couple questions.
1. What all sources do you have allowed?
2. What level are you at?
Answer those 2 and I will have you a melee build cranked out pretty quick
-----------------------------------------------
In a bubble though. I think you should play a Core cleric. I'd say play a druid or a psywar too, but I fear that playing a melee with nice things might just get "Core Only" dropped on you.
So yeah cut to the chase, play the core melee cleric:
DISCUSS IT WITH THE OTHER PLAYERS, maybe dm a game, it might be good for him to get behind the screeen some.

I've already got a cleric--it's a kind of spread-out campaign, where each player has several characters. This one, as all characters, would be starting at level 1. The sources allowed are basically everything official--including Dragon, but not including psionics, and now not including ToB.




Oh, and is the knight class any good?

[Midnight_v]

No psionics, no tob. Check.

What level, and what books?
Ooooh and do you have a magic mart available?!

[Grendus]

A wizards guide to being god. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0)

If you want to show him what a really overpowered spellcaster is. I wouldn't recommend it, but the option is there. If you want to show him what a really overpowered class is, there you go.




For crusader flavor, though, I'd go with a Cleric 4/Ordained Champion 5/Mythic Exemplar 10 (of Imdastri, though you can choose another if you're willing to lose caster levels)/Cleric 1. You can shuffle the build around a bit, Mythic Exemplar can be entered at the same level as Ordained Champion and you can pick and choose your way through it, and you can easily qualify for another PrC by level 20 accidentally. It's actually quite a bit more powerful than crusader, but you can get the same holy warrior feel. You can go toe to toe with your enemies, you can heal your allies, and generally do just about everything a crusader could (and then some).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A cold-themed Cleric is actually extremely good without Divine Metamagic. Both Snowsight and Obscuring Snow last an hour/level, you can Lesser Rod of Extend them for twice the duration, and you can just cast Ice Axe at the start of every encounter. Get the Winter domain and probably the Cold domain, with the PH2 ACF for Winter to cast Snowsight more than 1/day (or make anyone else who wants Snowsight cast on them every day buy you a 1st level Pearl of Power and 1/3 of a Lesser Rod of Extend). Between the Cold domain's AoE spells and the opponents being unable to see their own hand in front of their face, your party should defeat everything extremely easily.

[Gensh]

Hmm... I hate to get off topic and you can pm the asnwer if you like but..
Why?
It seems to me that the most distasteful thing about the ToB is people perpetuating the lie that its "unbalanced" somehow.
We KNOW the core is unbalanced. . . and how we honestly get past that and avoid posts like this one when people geniunely don't know. Keep them ignorant? Confront them with the truth?
Either way sucks for the people coming and asking for help. I've never heard "try playing a monk" as advice before.

Simply put, in comparison to your garden variety party, ToB is genuinely overpowered. In my experience, non-online groups don't care for optimization if they don't outright call anyone who dares optimize expletives. For them, the game is simply about having fun and unwinding. The guy who's playing the monk is doing so because he doesn't want to have to worry about all the fancy spells and such, and suggesting he play a swordsage will only rub him the wrong way. This isn't a matter of ignorance or truth, merely that the fighter only wants to hit people with his pointy stick and doesn't like it when someone barges in doing all these fancy moves that don't belong in his vision of D&D. The general public denial that the game has changed in grittiness from earlier editions is exemplified in Pathfinder. The online pro-optimizing community is quite simply the minority, and many don't want to have to deal with that sort of thing.

[NNescio]

Oh, and is the knight class any good?

It does tanking reasonably well for low-OP groups, and is the only class with a built-in 'draw aggro' mechanic (that is, without picking feats or spells).

Its CoC is kinda restrictive though, and is potentially moreso than the Paladin's, depending on DM.

That said, it's still quite low-powered, but then again it's a Tier 5 Class.

[Captain Caveman]

A knight can be really fun. The only one I ever played was a Paladin 4/Knight 10. Essentially he specialized in fighting an evil opponent 1 on 1. It isn't so great at fighting a horde, but it is good at stalling the main opponent while your allies work their way through the minions.

[Tvtyrant]

Ranger Sword of the Arcane Order 8/ Swiftblade 9/ Abjurant Champion 3

[Flame of Anor]

For crusader flavor, though, I'd go with a Cleric 4/Ordained Champion 5/Mythic Exemplar 10 (of Imdastri, though you can choose another if you're willing to lose caster levels)/Cleric 1. You can shuffle the build around a bit, Mythic Exemplar can be entered at the same level as Ordained Champion and you can pick and choose your way through it, and you can easily qualify for another PrC by level 20 accidentally. It's actually quite a bit more powerful than crusader, but you can get the same holy warrior feel. You can go toe to toe with your enemies, you can heal your allies, and generally do just about everything a crusader could (and then some).

Okay, let's say I'm going for that build. I'll be worshiping Heironeous for in-game reasons--what domains and feats should I take?

[Amphetryon]

Roll out a Totemist. You'll rock combat reasonably well without ToB, and have some versatility with the right melds.

[PollyOliver]

A cold-themed Cleric is actually extremely good without Divine Metamagic. Both Snowsight and Obscuring Snow last an hour/level, you can Lesser Rod of Extend them for twice the duration, and you can just cast Ice Axe at the start of every encounter. Get the Winter domain and probably the Cold domain, with the PH2 ACF for Winter to cast Snowsight more than 1/day (or make anyone else who wants Snowsight cast on them every day buy you a 1st level Pearl of Power and 1/3 of a Lesser Rod of Extend). Between the Cold domain's AoE spells and the opponents being unable to see their own hand in front of their face, your party should defeat everything extremely easily.

Shoot, if you want to do snow, call avalanche + blood snow is an...unfortunate combination. And then blizzard.... You know that giant battle that we were going to lose? Yeah, no one's fighting anymore.

But I'll throw my hat in for not purposely borking the campaign, however tempting it might be. You probably should explain how imbalanced core is. Knowledge is power and all that. You can even offer to demonstrate (as long as they know it's coming). I'm all for combating ignorance with knowledge. If the majority group still wants to play low optimization after they do know, though, that's their decision.

But if you just sledgehammer a totally unoptimized blaster wizard/sword and board/healbot party with CoDzilla or Batman, be prepared for hard feelings, ill will, and an inexperienced DM labeling you a munchkin and everything you ever touch from here to eternity as overpowered.

[BinaryMage]

It does tanking reasonably well for low-OP groups, and is the only class with a built-in 'draw aggro' mechanic (that is, without picking feats or spells).

Its CoC is kinda restrictive though, and is potentially moreso than the Paladin's, depending on DM.

That said, it's still quite low-powered, but then again it's a Tier 5 Class.

If you optimize it, it will tank well in a low or medium OP group. The CoC of the knight is a problem if a lot of your party is CG or CN (or heaven forbid CE), but if you have a mostly neutral or lawful party, it shouldn't be a huge hindrance, and it could be quite fun to RP.

[Big Fau]

Its CoC is kinda restrictive though, and is potentially moreso than the Paladin's, depending on DM.

The CoC also doesn't cause you to lose all class features, only a daily use of Knight's Challenge each time you violate it (nonpermanent at that).

The only way to lose all of the Knight's class features is to be non-Lawful.

[Flame of Anor]

But I'll throw my hat in for not purposely borking the campaign, however tempting it might be.

A wise decision, I'm sure.


You probably should explain how imbalanced core is. Knowledge is power and all that. You can even offer to demonstrate (as long as they know it's coming). I'm all for combating ignorance with knowledge. If the majority group still wants to play low optimization after they do know, though, that's their decision.

I may do that later, but for now, one banned sourcebook isn't that bad. Plus, it means that if I restrain myself, I can have interesting little tricks up my sleeve much of the time. :smallamused:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Simply put, in comparison to your garden variety party, ToB is genuinely overpowered. In my experience, non-online groups don't care for optimization if they don't outright call anyone who dares optimize expletives. For them, the game is simply about having fun and unwinding. The guy who's playing the monk is doing so because he doesn't want to have to worry about all the fancy spells and such, and suggesting he play a swordsage will only rub him the wrong way. This isn't a matter of ignorance or truth, merely that the fighter only wants to hit people with his pointy stick and doesn't like it when someone barges in doing all these fancy moves that don't belong in his vision of D&D. The general public denial that the game has changed in grittiness from earlier editions is exemplified in Pathfinder. The online pro-optimizing community is quite simply the minority, and many don't want to have to deal with that sort of thing.It's not just that ToB is overpowered at certain optimization levels. Breaking the game just to show that ToB isn't overpowered is wrong for many other reasons:

(1) You're not showing that ToB is balanced. You're showing that you can make unbalanced characters, or that the class you played, or a feat/spell/combo you used is unbalanced. No lesson learned.
(2) You're upping the ante against the DM, who can hypothetically pull out any stops he wants. This sort of moment is where "Rocks fall, everyone dies" comes from. You're not going to 'win.' Which leads me to...
(3) This time you spent 'instructing' the DM was time spent ruining what could have been a very fun game for other players. Players who had nothing to do with the DM's fiats, nor his views on balance. Causing this level of collateral damage just to prove a point, especially when you could simply build the character and show the DM outside of the game what it could do, is just being a jerk. There's no way around it.

Speaking of which, build an overpowered CoDzilla, and show it to him outside of the game. Then compare it to a relatively well built Crusader and show how the Crusader pales in comparison. Then build a charging barbarian and/or a Dungeoncrasher and see how the damage numbers (if not the versatility) are once again superior. That second one might drive the point home more clearly. Again, do this outside the game.

[Midnight_v]

But I'll throw my hat in for not purposely borking the campaign, however tempting it might be.
I should say I see that though I posted the origin, I don't advocate being a campaign destroying entity.

For crusader flavor, though, I'd go with a Cleric 4/Ordained Champion 5/Mythic Exemplar 10 (of Imdastri, though you can choose another if you're willing to lose caster levels)/Cleric 1. You can shuffle the build around a bit, Mythic Exemplar can be entered at the same level as Ordained Champion and you can pick and choose your way through it, and you can easily qualify for another PrC by level 20 accidentally. It's actually quite a bit more powerful than crusader, but you can get the same holy warrior feel. You can go toe to toe with your enemies, you can heal your allies, and generally do just about everything a crusader could (and then some).
This is similar to the build I was going to suggest, I missed this post somehow though.
Though I'm suggesting you might be able to pull the same things not multiclassing if it comes up again. Just to keep in mind.



The general public denial that the game has changed in grittiness from earlier editions is exemplified in Pathfinder.
Sorry I don't know anything about pathfinder really... hmm actually I read the new psywar to be wholly more satisfying, and that the rest of the changes to balance were wholly superficial.
So how is that exemplified? Is pathfinder more tob like or less tob like? I would think it'd be less but mostly cause its a relaunch of the system and they haven't gotten around to the inevitable. I do know they picked up lots of people with right place at the right time (being the only 3.X left + pretend open playtesting) and well made/illustrated books.

[Gensh]

So how is that exemplified? Is pathfinder more tob like or less tob like? I would think it'd be less but mostly cause its a relaunch of the system and they haven't gotten around to the inevitable. I do know they picked up lots of people with right place at the right time (being the only 3.X left + pretend open playtesting) and well made/illustrated books.

Pathfinder is almost exactly 3.5 but with more bells and whistles. The new mechanics introduced at the end of 3.5 were deliberately not included because of the tendency of DMs to ban them and their marked difference from the rest of the mechanics.

[JaronK]

Consider a Cloistered Cleric/PrC Paladin/Contemplative (or some other PrC, or just more CC... you just don't want more than a few Paladin levels) with Holy Mount and DMM:Persist. Now you're a super charged version of a Paladin. Persist group buff spells like Righteous Wrath of the Faithful so that your power is spread out to the whole group (you'll need Divine Power to qualify for PrCP, though).

It's like playing a Paladin that's actually good.

JaronK

[Urpriest]

Simply put, in comparison to your garden variety party, ToB is genuinely overpowered. In my experience, non-online groups don't care for optimization if they don't outright call anyone who dares optimize expletives. For them, the game is simply about having fun and unwinding. The guy who's playing the monk is doing so because he doesn't want to have to worry about all the fancy spells and such, and suggesting he play a swordsage will only rub him the wrong way. This isn't a matter of ignorance or truth, merely that the fighter only wants to hit people with his pointy stick and doesn't like it when someone barges in doing all these fancy moves that don't belong in his vision of D&D. The general public denial that the game has changed in grittiness from earlier editions is exemplified in Pathfinder. The online pro-optimizing community is quite simply the minority, and many don't want to have to deal with that sort of thing.

See, sociologically speaking I don't understand this. 3.5 is dead. It isn't being published anymore. If someone plays 3.5, they must both have been playing for some time, and they must prefer it to 4e in at least some cases (because really, who wouldn't know about 4e by now?). Playing for some time means they've had plenty of time to absorb rules exploits, think about the game, and yes, read forums about it. And they're going to, because they're nerds. That's why people game in the first place. Disliking 4e means they prefer 3.5's complex builds, varied classes, and tons of options. This should make them pro-optimization, not anti. So what sort of social pressure makes a group playing 3.5 of all systems anti-optimization?

[Zaq]

Play an Expert.

No, really. Play an Expert. Handle Animal + UMD + social skills = yeah, you've got something to do. (Also, Craft: Poisonmaking.) In a group this unoptimizaed, Iaijutsu Focus is probably too much, and you'd get flak for bringing in "broken non-core material." You don't need it. (I'm not even getting into Death By Lucid Dreaming.) Fluff it however the hell you want. You could make an Expert feel like someone empowered by faith if you tried hard enough.

For bonus points, don't tell the group what class you are.

[erikun]

My cleric just got that feat...I'm really, really hoping he gets to keep it...

Not low levels, exactly, but pretty low-op definitely.
I'd just like to note, but the self-buffing cleric can work well even without DMM: Persist. Just ration the buffs you hand out (meaning: 2 or 3 per battle, don't dump 5 on yourself for one fight) and you can last for half a dozen fights before you run out of spells at mid levels. That might not be impressive for the World's Largest Dungeon, but it works quite well unless you're fighting hordes of enemies all day. Heck, some of the more impressive spells (Righteous Might) could probably work on their own, if needed.

Also, I'm going to invoke pure blasphemy here, but you don't need to maximize your Wisdom as a battle cleric. Even 14 Wisdom nets you 9th-level spells with a +6 WIS item, although that's probably lower than you want. 16 Strength/16 Wisdom will likely get you all the spells you want, along with allowing you to focus on Strength. Plus, people won't be asking you for heals all the time if you call yourself a "Holy Warrior" or "Battle Priest".


I'm not sure which would be the best domains to choose from. Magic, Travel, and Knowledge (with the Knowledge Devotion feat) are probably the strongest options, but I don't think Heironeous offers any of those. The War domain isn't generally a bad choice. Good and Law are pretty unimpressive, unless you are trying to increase the CL of Holy Word and similar spells - pick whichever gives you the spells you feel are most thematic.

[Gensh]

See, sociologically speaking I don't understand this. 3.5 is dead. It isn't being published anymore. If someone plays 3.5, they must both have been playing for some time, and they must prefer it to 4e in at least some cases (because really, who wouldn't know about 4e by now?). Playing for some time means they've had plenty of time to absorb rules exploits, think about the game, and yes, read forums about it. And they're going to, because they're nerds. That's why people game in the first place. Disliking 4e means they prefer 3.5's complex builds, varied classes, and tons of options. This should make them pro-optimization, not anti. So what sort of social pressure makes a group playing 3.5 of all systems anti-optimization?

The players I've had experience with enjoy the vast granularity provided by the 3.X framework, particularly with my prestige class houserules as opposed to the cookie-cutter classes of 4E (well, one group eventually changed to 4E, but that's another story). What they dislike is "cheating." That's all they see optimization as. While they play unique characters, they don't refluff classes in the slightest because they legitimately enjoy the challenge of building their character concept within the constraints provided by the system. The general view is that if you're going to ignore that anyway, you might as well be playing a point-buy system, of which few of them were fans. Put simply, they prefer the older style of gaming, despite being far too young to have ever experienced it. If a wizard loses his spellbook, the player doesn't cry foul but rather thinks of a cunning way to imitate spells alchemically so as to keep his stranglehold on the city.

[erikun]

If someone plays 3.5, they must both have been playing for some time, and they must prefer it to 4e in at least some cases (because really, who wouldn't know about 4e by now?). Playing for some time means they've had plenty of time to absorb rules exploits, think about the game, and yes, read forums about it. And they're going to, because they're nerds... So what sort of social pressure makes a group playing 3.5 of all systems anti-optimization?
Well, I see two problems. First, there is one very good reason to play 3.5e over 4e: It's free. In fact, that's probably one of the top reasons to do so.

Second, just because someone plays the game doesn't mean they go online and try to break the game. I'm quite sure there are a number of groups that either haven't inspected the game online or did, and decided to ignore the advice. Heck, OP's game seems to indicate we've found another.

[NNescio]

The players I've had experience with enjoy the vast granularity provided by the 3.X framework, particularly with my prestige class houserules as opposed to the cookie-cutter classes of 4E (well, one group eventually changed to 4E, but that's another story). What they dislike is "cheating." That's all they see optimization as. While they play unique characters, they don't refluff classes in the slightest because they legitimately enjoy the challenge of building their character concept within the constraints provided by the system. The general view is that if you're going to ignore that anyway, you might as well be playing a point-buy system, of which few of them were fans. Put simply, they prefer the older style of gaming, despite being far too young to have ever experienced it. If a wizard loses his spellbook, the player doesn't cry foul but rather thinks of a cunning way to imitate spells alchemically so as to keep his stranglehold on the city.

And who are you to generalize based on your small sample set of players?

[Flame of Anor]

It's not just that ToB is overpowered at certain optimization levels. Breaking the game just to show that ToB isn't overpowered is wrong for many other reasons:

...

Really, I'm not trying to break the game, so you don't have to convince me that it's a bad idea. :smallwink:


Speaking of which, build an overpowered CoDzilla, and show it to him outside of the game. Then compare it to a relatively well built Crusader and show how the Crusader pales in comparison. Then build a charging barbarian and/or a Dungeoncrasher and see how the damage numbers (if not the versatility) are once again superior. That second one might drive the point home more clearly. Again, do this outside the game.

I'm not sure he'd be convinced. It seems more likely to me that he'd just think the CoDzilla and the Dungeoncrasher were stupidly cheesy (which they kind of would be).


Consider a Cloistered Cleric/PrC Paladin/Contemplative (or some other PrC, or just more CC... you just don't want more than a few Paladin levels) with Holy Mount and DMM:Persist. Now you're a super charged version of a Paladin. Persist group buff spells like Righteous Wrath of the Faithful so that your power is spread out to the whole group (you'll need Divine Power to qualify for PrCP, though).

It's like playing a Paladin that's actually good.

JaronK

It sounds great, but I'm not sure taking three classes at once that have never before been seen in this campaign would quite fly.

[Gensh]

And who are you to generalize based on your small sample set of players?

Who are you to generalize based on your small sample set of forumers? :smalltongue:

This isn't just one group. There are countless instances of players with similar groups making a single post and then leaving because of the overwhelmingly negative view a great deal of the pro-opti group have of people who aren't just some faceless online strangers but rather their closest friends. Tolerance of alternate playstyles is the key, and simply viewing any previous ToB discussion on this board shows that it's a rarity.

[erikun]

And who are you to generalize based on your small sample set of players?
I think he has a point. After all, he's not saying that everyone is like that. He's not saying that even most people are like that. He's just saying that the people he's played with are like that.

And even if that is the entire point - isn't it reasonable to assume that others, somewhere, play the same way? The question was basically, "What sort of group plays 3.5 anti-optimization?" Talking about a group that does so is entirely the point. :smallwink:

[Urpriest]

The players I've had experience with enjoy the vast granularity provided by the 3.X framework, particularly with my prestige class houserules as opposed to the cookie-cutter classes of 4E (well, one group eventually changed to 4E, but that's another story). What they dislike is "cheating." That's all they see optimization as. While they play unique characters, they don't refluff classes in the slightest because they legitimately enjoy the challenge of building their character concept within the constraints provided by the system. The general view is that if you're going to ignore that anyway, you might as well be playing a point-buy system, of which few of them were fans. Put simply, they prefer the older style of gaming, despite being far too young to have ever experienced it. If a wizard loses his spellbook, the player doesn't cry foul but rather thinks of a cunning way to imitate spells alchemically so as to keep his stranglehold on the city.

I'll admit that fluff primacy is something that would make someone stick with 3.5 over 4e, since the fluff is as vast as the crunch. Still, it's a little odd that they've been playing for long enough to play 3.5 and haven't got sucked in to the forum mindset. I mean, people our age are internet-based organisms, and D&D players are naturally infovores, it's not hard to run into optimization advice and once someone like us sees it we are compelled to absorb it, whether to use it or refute it.


Well, I see two problems. First, there is one very good reason to play 3.5e over 4e: It's free. In fact, that's probably one of the top reasons to do so.

Second, just because someone plays the game doesn't mean they go online and try to break the game. I'm quite sure there are a number of groups that either haven't inspected the game online or did, and decided to ignore the advice. Heck, OP's game seems to indicate we've found another.

4e is free too, for a given value of free. The SRD doesn't have rules for leveling up, so either way you're either using someone else's rules knowledge (in 4e this is called using their character builder subscription) or you're paying, and 3.5 is much more expensive to start out.

And someone playing the game for years does mean that they'll go online to learn how to break the game in the majority of cases. The internet is full of minivan moms out to optimize their cake baking, for heaven's sake: if there's an activity these days, the majority of its experienced proponents will be discussing it online.

[Tvtyrant]

And who are you to generalize based on your small sample set of players?

Considering he/she is posting in a thread where ToB is banned, and they didn't actually generalize...

[NNescio]

Who are you to generalize based on your small sample set of forumers? :smalltongue:

This isn't just one group. There are countless instances of players with similar groups making a single post and then leaving because of the overwhelmingly negative view a great deal of the pro-opti group have of people who aren't just some faceless online strangers but rather their closest friends. Tolerance of alternate playstyles is the key, and simply viewing any previous ToB discussion on this board shows that it's a rarity.

I'm not generalizing. You are. I'm not the one coming up with the assertions. You are.

Not anyone who challenges your claim automatically supports its inverse.


I think he has a point. After all, he's not saying that everyone is like that. He's not saying that even most people are like that. He's just saying that the people he's played with are like that.

And even if that is the entire point - isn't it reasonable to assume that others, somewhere, play the same way? The question was basically, "What sort of group plays 3.5 anti-optimization?" Talking about a group that does so is entirely the point. :smallwink:

*Ahem*


Simply put, in comparison to your garden variety party, ToB is genuinely overpowered. In my experience, non-online groups don't care for optimization if they don't outright call anyone who dares optimize expletives. For them, the game is simply about having fun and unwinding. The guy who's playing the monk is doing so because he doesn't want to have to worry about all the fancy spells and such, and suggesting he play a swordsage will only rub him the wrong way. This isn't a matter of ignorance or truth, merely that the fighter only wants to hit people with his pointy stick and doesn't like it when someone barges in doing all these fancy moves that don't belong in his vision of D&D. The general public denial that the game has changed in grittiness from earlier editions is exemplified in Pathfinder. The online pro-optimizing community is quite simply the minority, and many don't want to have to deal with that sort of thing.

See, I can make unsupported assertions as well:
"Some people like to optimize. Some people don't like to optimize. There is insufficient data to claim which one is the majority or minority. Also, we'll need to define what "pro-optimize" means first, since it can include things like 'taking Power Attack for your fighter.'"

[erikun]

4e is free too, for a given value of free.
4e has a SRD now too? Last I'd heard, there was only the OGL listing the names of classes, powers, and such.


*Ahem*
Aha, I stand corrected. Or sit at my desk corrected, to be more accurate.

[Grendus]

Okay, let's say I'm going for that build. I'll be worshiping Heironeous for in-game reasons--what domains and feats should I take?

You're stuck with War (which isn't half bad, though I wish Heironeous' favored weapon were 2 handed). Law has some nice spells, though I'd recommend trading the domain power for Law Devotion which grants a +3 Sacred bonus to AC as a free action 1/day. Both the Glory and Inquisition domains are also fairly solid, pick Glory for an undead or evil heavy campaign or Inquisition for one heavier on the intrigue. I'd be tempted to skip the good domain though, the domain power sucks and Good Devotion's granted power is pretty pitiful (DR 1+1/5 levels... pretty craptastic bonus). It has a few nice spells, but most are duplicated on your list.

I'd go with the Law and Glory domains, substituting the Law domain power for Law Devotion. Spontaneous Healer lets you keep your healing role (this is a lower op group, you'll be a something of a walking box of bandaids to them), and Awesome Smite makes your smite ability... well... awesome (ignore DR 2xCha, ignore miss chance, or take a free trip attempt). Since you have some great abilities that are based on turn attempts, Extra Turning is always a good thing (again, I'm assuming low op so nightsticks are probably out of the question). Beyond that, it's up to you. From the sounds of your group, you're the probably most optimized member by this point so I'd steer clear of DMM: Persist shenanigans.

[Gensh]

And someone playing the game for years does mean that they'll go online to learn how to break the game in the majority of cases. The internet is full of minivan moms out to optimize their cake baking, for heaven's sake: if there's an activity these days, the majority of its experienced proponents will be discussing it online.

Well, generally speaking, my groups have been, in order:
Potheads who realize they have a problem and just want to have an alternate form of fantasy
Lord of the Rings hardliners
Overworked college students who just want to unwind without doing extra research
College students who are too lazy to do extra research



I'm not generalizing. You are. I'm not the one coming up with the assertions. You are.

Not anyone who challenges your claim automatically supports its inverse.
Well, it would help if you actually composed an argument rather than giving what you believe are witty one-liners. :smallwink:


*Ahem*
Indeed, I did make a generalization there, but it's not like I'm pulling it out of my hat. There are multiple cases of this happening on this very board. In fact, I would venture that the majority of players have no knowledge of optimization based on what can be seen from all the varying sources across the media spectrum. Might I be wrong? Certainly, but the fact remains that there are enough people who subscribe to this style of play that it should be respected rather than outright called "doin' it rong."

[Urpriest]

4e has a SRD now too? Last I'd heard, there was only the OGL listing the names of classes, powers, and such.


You can't play with just the SRD, someone has to have the books. Otherwise you can't level up, as I pointed out.

Thus, for you "free" means one member of the group shells out money for one book and the rest don't. Which is about equivalent to one person getting a D&DInsider subscription for 4e and the rest mooching off it. Same effect: everyone has access to most of the relevant rules, and one person fills it out by paying some money.

[BinaryMage]

4e has a SRD now too? Last I'd heard, there was only the OGL listing the names of classes, powers, and such.


4e has a SRD here (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/4E_SRD.pdf), but you are correct, it is much more limited than the 3.5e SRD.


You can't play with just the SRD, someone has to have the books. Otherwise you can't level up, as I pointed out.

No, you can play for free with 3.5e, entirely legally, it just takes more effort to find what you need, and you might need to fill a few holes and use some homebrew.

The difference between the 3.5e SRD and 4e SRD is huge.

[Urpriest]

4e has a SRD here (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/4E_SRD.pdf), but you are correct, it is much more limited than the 3.5e SRD.



No, you can play for free with 3.5e, entirely legally, it just takes more effort to find what you need, and you might need to fill a few holes and use some homebrew.

The difference between the 3.5e SRD and 4e SRD is huge.

I'm not talking about the SRD, I'm talking about the character builder and the compendium. With those two, playing 4e is about as viable as using the 3.5 SRD. And how are you getting 3.5's XP table legally for free?

[Salbazier]

You can make up your own xp tables or steal/adapt the table in PFSRD. More simple, you can just borrow someone else PHB.

[PollyOliver]

I'm not talking about the SRD, I'm talking about the character builder and the compendium. With those two, playing 4e is about as viable as using the 3.5 SRD. And how are you getting 3.5's XP table legally for free?

Freeform xp? Wealth by level might be more complicated, but the number of real life groups I've ever played with that actually used wealth by level anyway is...one half, maybe--one group half the time? To be fair, the DMs were aware of WBL and generally capable of making sure we could still handle the encounters.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, generally speaking, my groups have been, in order:
Potheads who realize they have a problem and just want to have an alternate form of fantasy
Lord of the Rings hardliners
Overworked college students who just want to unwind without doing extra research
College students who are too lazy to do extra research
A true cross section of the population if I ever saw one.

Indeed, I did make a generalization there, but it's not like I'm pulling it out of my hat. There are multiple cases of this happening on this very board. In fact, I would venture that the majority of players have no knowledge of optimization based on what can be seen from all the varying sources across the media spectrum. Might I be wrong? Certainly, but the fact remains that there are enough people who subscribe to this style of play that it should be respected rather than outright called "doin' it rong."You can make all the generalizations you want, but you have no way to convince anyone they're true. I'm sure that there is some plurality of players that play your style, but in my experience, those players tend to move to systems better suited to their playstyle. Mostly rules-light indie games like Lady Blackbird or Dogs in the Vineyard. Buncha hippies.

[BinaryMage]

I'm not talking about the SRD, I'm talking about the character builder and the compendium. With those two, playing 4e is about as viable as using the 3.5 SRD. And how are you getting 3.5's XP table legally for free?

Okay then. I must admit I didn't really use the character builder, I looked at 4e when it first released, read the core books, decided I didn't like it, and never looked back. I didn't know the character builder was free.
As for the second question, you don't need to get the XP table. If you just figured out what pace you wanted leveling at, you could fairly easily create a custom XP table. Many DMs do that already. That said, it's definitely a good idea to buy at least the core books. My point was simply that it isn't strictly necessary.

[Salbazier]

Also, I don't remember if it was mentioned in the books somewhere but I first read in the net about the '4 encounters/day' and '13 equal encounter per level' (numbers may be off) . Its not to hard to calculate from there (and any other info that may available without breaking copyright) how much xp you need to level. And again, you can just always ask/borrow from someone else IRL.

[Gensh]

A true cross section of the population if I ever saw one.
You can make all the generalizations you want, but you have no way to convince anyone they're true. I'm sure that there is some plurality of players that play your style, but in my experience, those players tend to move to systems better suited to their playstyle. Mostly rules-light indie games like Lady Blackbird or Dogs in the Vineyard. Buncha hippies.

I'm just saying that there are still people out there who envision D&D as the archetypal fantasy game and refuse to play it as anything else, and that they're not just a bunch of grognards. Some people want to play exactly what I've detailed; nothing more, nothing less. While their interests might legitimately be better served by something else, that's for them to decide and not an object of ridicule. And there's no need for me to search the depths of the board for me to find evidence when many of us have at least browsed the threads I'm referencing. Also you're using the term "plurality" wrong.

[Urpriest]

You can make up your own xp tables or steal/adapt the table in PFSRD. More simple, you can just borrow someone else PHB.

Making up your own is only really plausible when you know what you're aping. Without prior knowledge of 3.5 you have no way of knowing that PF has the same XP table. And borrowing someone else's PHB is just as feasible as borrowing their D&DInsider password.


Freeform xp? Wealth by level might be more complicated, but the number of real life groups I've ever played with that actually used wealth by level anyway is...one half, maybe--one group half the time? To be fair, the DMs were aware of WBL and generally capable of making sure we could still handle the encounters.

As you yourself point out, none of these modifications are possible unless you know the default, which someone picking up the system with no access to experienced players simply wouldn't have. You need experienced players or the full core books to pick up any of these systems, and the former is perfectly sufficient to play any of them for free.

[BinaryMage]

Making up your own is only really plausible when you know what you're aping. Without prior knowledge of 3.5 you have no way of knowing that PF has the same XP table. And borrowing someone else's PHB is just as feasible as borrowing their D&DInsider password.

Eh, yes and no. You could experiment and figure out what seems right easily enough. But this is becoming a discussion of technicalities anyways. This isn't a 4e v 3.5e thread, and this is coming too close, I think.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'm just saying that there are still people out there who envision D&D as the archetypal fantasy game and refuse to play it as anything else, and that they're not just a bunch of grognards. Some people want to play exactly what I've detailed; nothing more, nothing less. While their interests might legitimately be better served by something else, that's for them to decide and not an object of ridicule. And there's no need for me to search the depths of the board for me to find evidence when many of us have at least browsed the threads I'm referencing. Also you're using the term "plurality" wrong.It's less 'ridicule' and more 'chafing under restrictions.' Your version of traditional, archetypal fantasy is just one vision; like many have said before, Conan is modeled better as a Warblade than a Barbarian. The idea is, if you don't like what a system has to offer, why stay with that system?

And like with many words, plurality has more than one definition. "A large number or quantity." Who polices the grammar police?

[Salbazier]

Making up your own is only really plausible when you know what you're aping. Without prior knowledge of 3.5 you have no way of knowing that PF has the same XP table. And borrowing someone else's PHB is just as feasible as borrowing their D&DInsider password.



Ask the net? To be honest, its likely they'll hit illegally posted table first, but still, it is possible to get legal info/advice like 'go check pf, its has better SRD'. I'm sure I saw something along that line yesterday.

Even then, trial & error and freeform xp like PolllyOlliver said is not impossible. If you are just starting you'll likely won't care too much the balance issue and such.

[Gensh]

It's less 'ridicule' and more 'chafing under restrictions.' Your version of traditional, archetypal fantasy is just one vision; like many have said before, Conan is modeled better as a Warblade than a Barbarian. The idea is, if you don't like what a system has to offer, why stay with that system?

And like with many words, plurality has more than one definition. "A large number or quantity." Who polices the grammar police?

No one is chafing. Does another group's playstyle really affect you that much? They're perfectly happy playing the way they are and don't want to change. It doesn't matter if classic hero X is represented better with ToB if the player doesn't want to have to manage what he perceives as spells and explicitly just wants to hit things with a pointy stick. On the other hand, plurality is one of the various terms that has a different meaning in general speech than what it really means. It's a technical term referring to the largest portion of a whole when none are large enough to form a majority.

[TOZ]

Eh, yes and no. You could experiment and figure out what seems right easily enough.

Personally, I've thrown out XP entirely, but that certainly isn't something a brand new player would think of.

[Flame of Anor]

You're stuck with War (which isn't half bad, though I wish Heironeous' favored weapon were 2 handed). Law has some nice spells, though I'd recommend trading the domain power for Law Devotion which grants a +3 Sacred bonus to AC as a free action 1/day. Both the Glory and Inquisition domains are also fairly solid, pick Glory for an undead or evil heavy campaign or Inquisition for one heavier on the intrigue. I'd be tempted to skip the good domain though, the domain power sucks and Good Devotion's granted power is pretty pitiful (DR 1+1/5 levels... pretty craptastic bonus). It has a few nice spells, but most are duplicated on your list.

I'd go with the Law and Glory domains, substituting the Law domain power for Law Devotion. Spontaneous Healer lets you keep your healing role (this is a lower op group, you'll be a something of a walking box of bandaids to them), and Awesome Smite makes your smite ability... well... awesome (ignore DR 2xCha, ignore miss chance, or take a free trip attempt). Since you have some great abilities that are based on turn attempts, Extra Turning is always a good thing (again, I'm assuming low op so nightsticks are probably out of the question). Beyond that, it's up to you. From the sounds of your group, you're the probably most optimized member by this point so I'd steer clear of DMM: Persist shenanigans.

More of this, less 3.5 vs. 4 quibbling.

[BinaryMage]

Personally, I've thrown out XP entirely, but that certainly isn't something a brand new player would think of.

I think there are campaigns and players with whom XP is necessary and those with whom it isn't.


More of this, less 3.5 vs. 4 quibbling.

My apologies.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

No one is chafing.How about the OP? I guess I should have said something about being sad instead of chafing.

Does another group's playstyle really affect you that much? They're perfectly happy playing the way they are and don't want to change.Does another poster's comments about another group's playstyle affect you that much? No. But we still post. Forums are confusing things.

It doesn't matter if classic hero X is represented better with ToB if the player doesn't want to have to manage what he perceives as spells and explicitly just wants to hit things with a pointy stick.Sometimes I just want a character who hits things with a stick. Why then should I deprive a fellow player of being able to do more than hit things with a stick? If there's a balance problem, there are two types of solutions: Restrict or unrestrict 3.5 such that someone is unhappy, or switch systems to something that doesn't require much crunch-management (though ToB requires a lot less than casters) to do neat things.


On the other hand, plurality is one of the various terms that has a different meaning in general speech than what it really means. It's a technical term referring to the largest portion of a whole when none are large enough to form a majority.I'm aware of the technical definition. The point is that it also has a different dictionary definition. Perhaps that definition came into being through misuse, but it's in the dictionary, so it's no longer misuse. That's how language works. Do you also correct split infinitives in your spare time?

[TOZ]

I think there are campaigns and players with whom XP is necessary and those with whom it isn't.


Quite so. I think E6 is proof enough of that.

I envision a campaign where the players pick the level band they are most comfortable with and stay within that band the entire time. Even if that band consists of a single level.

[Gensh]

How about the OP? I guess I should have said something about being sad instead of chafing.
The OP has since moved on (in a manner of speaking).


Does another poster's comments about another group's playstyle affect you that much? No. But we still post. Forums are confusing things.
There's quite a difference between defending and attacking.


Sometimes I just want a character who hits things with a stick. Why then should I deprive a fellow player of being able to do more than hit things with a stick? If there's a balance problem, there are two types of solutions: Restrict or unrestrict 3.5 such that someone is unhappy, or switch systems to something that doesn't require much crunch-management (though ToB requires a lot less than casters) to do neat things.
The point here is that no one is being restricted. No one at all. Out of those groups, there was exactly one player who wanted to use ToB, and he was a munchkin anyway. These players don't want to use fancy things. They want to hit something with their pointy stick again and again and again. They want to have Chaotic Good Barbarian 7 written on their character sheet. They don't want to have some dude with flashy swordsmanship upstaging their primal rage, and they certainly don't want to have to refluff something else into primal rage.


I'm aware of the technical definition. The point is that it also has a different dictionary definition. Perhaps that definition came into being through misuse, but it's in the dictionary, so it's no longer misuse. That's how language works. Do you also correct split infinitives in your spare time?

No, but I certainly do correct people who call me a cynic. Then I agree with them. :smallamused:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The OP has since moved on (in a manner of speaking).Yes, he's taken the mature response and moved on to a second best option. It doesn't mean it's okay that he can't play what he wants to play.

There's quite a difference between defending and attacking.How so? I could always just interpret it to say that I'm defending the OP's desire to play a crusader, or some other poster's desire to play a psychic warrior in some other thread.

The point here is that no one is being restricted. No one at all. Out of those groups, there was exactly one player who wanted to use ToB, and he was a munchkin anyway.I guess I'll have to take your word on the munchkin, but I wasn't talking about just your groups. There are a large number of threads on these forums which mention that ToB and Psionics are banned because the DM thinks they're overpowered. Not all of them conform to your group dynamics. In fact, many of them have overpowered casters running amok.

These players don't want to use fancy things. They want to hit something with their pointy stick again and again and again. They want to have Chaotic Good Barbarian 7 written on their character sheet. They don't want to have some dude with flashy swordsmanship upstaging their primal rage, and they certainly don't want to have to refluff something else into primal rage.Yes, I understand that those players don't want to do those things, just like other players want to play melee while having something to do other than hit things again and again. Hence the problem with D&D. If in your experience the only people who want to play a versatile melee character are munchkins to be banished from the land, your style works for you. Great. But the original point was that doesn't necessarily generalize to the gaming community at large, and the OP's original wishes run completely counter to the "just want to hit things" model you've presented.

[gomipile]

Actually, there is another option. Ask the DM to clearly, completely, and logically explain precisely how ToB is unbalanced or overpowered.

Just listen, never interrupt him. When he isn't talking, ask questions that invite him to compare the specific things he thinks are Op about ToB to things from Core we know are OP or balanced, depending.

Let it be simply a friendly discussion, do not challenge, maintain a friendly, conversational tone the whole time.

Leave the discussion open for future conversations. Let it be a continuing topic of discussion.

If he actually has reasoned out how ToB is OP, then upon comparing it to Core himself, he may change his mind. If he has not clearly reasoned out how ToB is OP, and cannot clearly respond to these questions, do not rub his nose in that fact. Give him the opportunity to do some research for himself over the coming days/weeks/months so that he may come to an informed decision.

Do not argue, do not try to state a position of your own, just ask questions in a friendly, non-confrontational tone. Be careful not to ask the questions rapid-fire. Do not repeat yourself if he refuses to answer a question, as this can come off as inquisitorial. Don't try to "pin him down" either.

[Flame of Anor]

Well, thanks for calling me mature and saying I should be able to play a crusader and all, but for the purposes of this thread I'd really just rather try to make an allowable character with the flavor I want.

Also, where does it say Heironeous gets domains other than Good, Law, and War?



Actually, there is another option. Ask the DM to clearly, completely, and logically explain precisely how ToB is unbalanced or overpowered.

Just listen, never interrupt him. When he isn't talking, ask questions that invite him to compare the specific things he thinks are Op about ToB to things from Core we know are OP or balanced, depending.

Let it be simply a friendly discussion, do not challenge, maintain a friendly, conversational tone the whole time.

Leave the discussion open for future conversations. Let it be a continuing topic of discussion.

If he actually has reasoned out how ToB is OP, then upon comparing it to Core himself, he may change his mind. If he has not clearly reasoned out how ToB is OP, and cannot clearly respond to these questions, do not rub his nose in that fact. Give him the opportunity to do some research for himself over the coming days/weeks/months so that he may come to an informed decision.

Do not argue, do not try to state a position of your own, just ask questions in a friendly, non-confrontational tone. Be careful not to ask the questions rapid-fire. Do not repeat yourself if he refuses to answer a question, as this can come off as inquisitorial. Don't try to "pin him down" either.

Well, in fact, he did say what he thought was overpowered.


These classes and maneuvers, etc are way over-powered compared to the core classes and even the other classes added in PHB II, etc. Iron Guard’s Glare alone would make any fighter drool and start multi-classing. …and it’s unlimited in its use? Crusaders’ Strike would make any Cleric drool, and it can be used almost every combat?

[Gensh]

Yes, he's taken the mature response and moved on to a second best option. It doesn't mean it's okay that he can't play what he wants to play.
How so? I could always just interpret it to say that I'm defending the OP's desire to play a crusader, or some other poster's desire to play a psychic warrior in some other thread.
I guess I'll have to take your word on the munchkin, but I wasn't talking about just your groups. There are a large number of threads on these forums which mention that ToB and Psionics are banned because the DM thinks they're overpowered. Not all of them conform to your group dynamics. In fact, many of them have overpowered casters running amok.
Yes, I understand that those players don't want to do those things, just like other players want to play melee while having something to do other than hit things again and again. Hence the problem with D&D. If in your experience the only people who want to play a versatile melee character are munchkins to be banished from the land, your style works for you. Great. But the original point was that doesn't necessarily generalize to the gaming community at large, and the OP's original wishes run completely counter to the "just want to hit things" model you've presented.

I've provided and example of four similar but separate groups from my personal experience so that I didn't have to search through the forum for examples. My point was simply that things go both ways - my line about tolerance for example. If you'll note the opening comments, which the OP had the grace to deny, there was a certain amount of general animosity towards the DM, who was making what appeared to be a reasonable, if uninformed, decision.

EDIT: Come to think of it, we're making a mess of the thread. We can continue in messages if you'd like.

[MrRigger]

Page 109 of Complete Divine has a table of the basic D&D gods and goddess, including their portfolio, alignment, domains, favored weapon, and divine rank. The more complete description of Heironeous is on page 112.

MrRigger

[Flame of Anor]

Page 109 of Complete Divine has a table of the basic D&D gods and goddess, including their portfolio, alignment, domains, favored weapon, and divine rank. The more complete description of Heironeous is on page 112.

MrRigger

Wonderful, thanks!


Now, what feats should I be taking? Also, is it worth it to take True Believer to qualify for a one-level Pious Templar dip that will get me Mettle?

[gomipile]

Well, in fact, he did say what he thought was overpowered.

Iron Guard's Glare is basically a "taunt" mechanic. It offers a small amount of "battlefield control", in a way, but I would like to see a logical, well reasoned explanation as to how it is "overpowered."

Crusader's strike is nice, but it is healing. And it is a small amount of healing, at that. The idea that a Crusader can heal for 1d6+5 "almost every combat" is more powerful than Cleric healing how, exactly?

What I am saying is that I don't think your DM has stated in a logical and well reasoned manner how ToB is overpowered.

Stating what he thinks is overpowered is not the same as logically explaining how it is overpowered.

I'm sure you can think of example questions to ask him that he would have to honestly think about to answer.

[Flame of Anor]

Iron Guard's Glare is basically a "taunt" mechanic. It offers a small amount of "battlefield control", in a way, but I would like to see a logical, well reasoned explanation as to how it is "overpowered."

Crusader's strike is nice, but it is healing. And it is a small amount of healing, at that. The idea that a Crusader can heal for 1d6+5 "almost every combat" is more powerful than Cleric healing how, exactly?

What I am saying is that I don't think your DM has stated in a logical and well reasoned manner how ToB is overpowered.

Stating what he thinks is overpowered is not the same as logically explaining how it is overpowered.

I'm sure you can think of example questions to ask him that he would have to honestly think about to answer.

I agree with you on all these counts, but I don't want to push the matter right now. In place of the crusader, I'm going to bring in his in-game brother, who happens to be a cleric of Heironeous going for Ordained Champion, etc. Then maybe later I'll casually bring this up again and convince him it's not actually overpowered. If it works, then bing! The cleric guy's crusader brother shows up.

[HunterOfJello]

Play an Expert.

No, really. Play an Expert. Handle Animal + UMD + social skills = yeah, you've got something to do. (Also, Craft: Poisonmaking.) In a group this unoptimizaed, Iaijutsu Focus is probably too much, and you'd get flak for bringing in "broken non-core material." You don't need it. (I'm not even getting into Death By Lucid Dreaming.) Fluff it however the hell you want. You could make an Expert feel like someone empowered by faith if you tried hard enough.

For bonus points, don't tell the group what class you are.

This is such an awesome idea. How would you choose to make this same character in a gestalt game using 2 npc classes?

I want to try it out with the group that i've been DMing for the past 2 years. We're finally switching to a rotating DM system and i'd like to show them how the game can be played when you make full use of the rules.

[Jude_H]

If you really want to emulate ToB with a Cleric, forget the standard self buffs.

Stock up on touch spells, but deliver them via unarmed strikes.
Transform standard cleric buffs into Swift versions like Swift Fly, Swift Haste, Swift Invisibility &co. Typically this means swift casting time, 1 round duration, self-only, 1 spell level earlier.

As you've outlined, Ordained Champion does versions of both those things by ECL7, but if your DM's banning ToB, ECL7 might be outside the scope of the campaign.

[PollyOliver]

This is such an awesome idea. How would you choose to make this same character in a gestalt game using 2 npc classes?

I want to try it out with the group that i've been DMing for the past 2 years. We're finally switching to a rotating DM system and i'd like to show them how the game can be played when you make full use of the rules.

Two NPC classes? Commoner for style points, chicken infested optional. If you want to play it straight, use adept. They've actually got a decent spell list.

[HunterOfJello]

Two NPC classes? Commoner for style points, chicken infested optional. If you want to play it straight, use adept. They've actually got a decent spell list.

The commoner would be awesome and would definitely win me style points. They do get some decent skills for this kind of build including spot, listen, craft, ride (which can be traded for tumble), and handle animal.

Adepts are already Tier 4 whereas Experts are generally considered Tier 5. Aristocrat, Warrior, and Commoner are each Tier 6 and therefore definitely better choices.

I'm very tempted to go with Aristocrat since they have a ton of good skills along with proficiency for martial weapons, all armor, and all shields. They also have a higher hit die.

The warrior is just a fighter minus the feats. I find that pretty sad.

~
I'll definitely grab the Wild Cohort feat. I'm not too sure about what else I should grab. This is going to be awesome.

*edit*

I'm going to make a new thread for this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11379534), it wasn't my intention to hijack this one.

[Zaq]

The commoner would be awesome and would definitely win me style points. They do get some decent skills for this kind of build including spot, listen, craft, ride (which can be traded for tumble), and handle animal.

Adepts are already Tier 4 whereas Experts are generally considered Tier 5. Aristocrat, Warrior, and Commoner are each Tier 6 and therefore definitely better choices.

I'm very tempted to go with Aristocrat since they have a ton of good skills along with proficiency for martial weapons, all armor, and all shields. They also have a higher hit die.

The warrior is just a fighter minus the feats. I find that pretty sad.

~
I'll definitely grab the Wild Cohort feat. I'm not too sure about what else I should grab. This is going to be awesome.

If you go outside core, there's the Magewright, from ECS. The Adept is strictly better, but the Magewright is cooler, at least in my book. Their spells known mechanic is just downright bizarre.

[PollyOliver]

If you are in fact aiming for absurdity (and taking aristocrat) leadership fits. But being awesome using leadership proves very little.

What's your starting level? Because a pack of your lord whatever's finest hunting dogs (with trip!) can result in some hilarity at level 1. Or, if you want some real absurdity, look up the commoner t-rex trainer thread.

[SlashRunner]

I'll admit that fluff primacy is something that would make someone stick with 3.5 over 4e, since the fluff is as vast as the crunch. Still, it's a little odd that they've been playing for long enough to play 3.5 and haven't got sucked in to the forum mindset. I mean, people our age are internet-based organisms, and D&D players are naturally infovores, it's not hard to run into optimization advice and once someone like us sees it we are compelled to absorb it, whether to use it or refute it.



4e is free too, for a given value of free. The SRD doesn't have rules for leveling up, so either way you're either using someone else's rules knowledge (in 4e this is called using their character builder subscription) or you're paying, and 3.5 is much more expensive to start out.

And someone playing the game for years does mean that they'll go online to learn how to break the game in the majority of cases. The internet is full of minivan moms out to optimize their cake baking, for heaven's sake: if there's an activity these days, the majority of its experienced proponents will be discussing it online.

I'd just like to note that I've been playing D&D for about 5-6 months, and I play 3.5. Also, I'm trying like hell to learn how to optimize, mainly because I'm a powergamer at heart, and I shall never cease to be so.

[OracleofSilence]

yeah, honestly, just go over the top. let your min-maxing go out of control. if you can't show that the ToB just makes melee somewhat more balanced against the actually good classes, then wreck hell (literally) until he either conseads the point or gives up out of frustration

[HunterOfJello]

If you go outside core, there's the Magewright, from ECS. The Adept is strictly better, but the Magewright is cooler, at least in my book. Their spells known mechanic is just downright bizarre.

Magewright does look pretty cool, but I think I might do better with Aristocrat. I'd also like to avoid using a class with a higher tier than Expert (which includes Adept).


If you are in fact aiming for absurdity (and taking aristocrat) leadership fits. But being awesome using leadership proves very little.

What's your starting level? Because a pack of your lord whatever's finest hunting dogs (with trip!) can result in some hilarity at level 1. Or, if you want some real absurdity, look up the commoner t-rex trainer thread.

Leadership is banned right now in the game, but I will definitely grab the Wild Cohort feat which is the next best thing.

The current level in the campaign is level 11 Gestalt. I included more information in the new thread I made (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11379534). We should probably move this discussion to over there.

[candycorn]

at some levels of optimization tob classes are overpowered ive played one game as a single class fighter using a war ax (with weapon specialization) and a shield and was balanced with the party sorcerer at level 9+ in a game like that upgrading to a tob class would have been overpowered now that was an extreme example but playing a low opp game is not wrong and suggesting he destroy the existing game balance by playing a cleric who persist divine power is certainly not going to fix the problem. Trying to force the dm to bow to your wishes by breaking the game over and over is the sign of a bad player.

I disagree with this.

You're saying, if you make enough bad choices for everyone else, TOB is totally strong!

What about when you make bad choices with TOB? The Crusader with an 18 int, 12 Str, 12 dex, 12 con, and 12 wis? Small size? Sword and board with a dagger and light shield?

Will that be overpowered to a Sorceror 9?

[Jude_H]

I disagree with this.

You're saying, if you make enough bad choices for everyone else, TOB is totally strong!
In this case, that's not really invalid. A player has to actually try to make 'bad choices' with ToB, unlike most other mechanical systems. In low op groups (fireballs, shields, etc.) it does create balance problems.

[Coidzor]

Go ahead and build that green star adept or elocator you've always wanted to play.

People have ever actually wanted to play those things? :smalltongue:

Flame of Anor: Seven Words: Ferret Trousers

More seriously, your DM thinks that Fighters wanting to multiclass when they realize the sheer badness of Fighter is a bad thing. :smallsigh: That boy needs a talking to about that right there.



In this case, that's not really invalid. A player has to actually try to make 'bad choices' with ToB, unlike most other mechanical systems. In low op groups (fireballs, shields, etc.) it does create balance problems.

No, it doesn't. What you're describing right there is simply a matter of the actions that the people playing are taking in combat, which actually ignore what the characters are capable of in favor of deliberately acting in this way.

Which ToB can do just as well as the fighter who wasted all of his class features.

[Urpriest]

Okay then. I must admit I didn't really use the character builder, I looked at 4e when it first released, read the core books, decided I didn't like it, and never looked back. I didn't know the character builder was free.

It's not exactly free, but it's password based. If one member of the group has a password, then everyone can use it, though it occasionally gets a little buggy if they try to use it at the same time.

[Midnight_v]

Iron Guard's Glare is basically a "taunt" mechanic. It offers a small amount of "battlefield control", in a way, but I would like to see a logical, well reasoned explanation as to how it is "overpowered."
We were just talking about this there is a "Goad" feat that is an actually taunt.
I see you've got the build down and I was wondering which way you were going with your feats?
Were you interested in being a lockdown style build or the divine metamagic guy. Or what.

Here's a link to the toolshop: Goad (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-1238-goad.html)
With that + Buffs + combat reflexes and standstill, and a reach weapon not to mention your already awesome build you can do the thing that crusaders tend to do the whole lock down thing.

[Morph Bark]

I find it amusing that quite a number of people in this thread seem to think that using an optimized full caster will make the DM think "oh hey ToB is not overpowered at all" rather than "oh hey I guess I should ban these casters just like I banned ToB".

[Seerow]

I find it amusing that quite a number of people in this thread seem to think that using an optimized full caster will make the DM think "oh hey ToB is not overpowered at all" rather than "oh hey I guess I should ban these casters just like I banned ToB".

Well you can continue on through other classes until either he's literally banned everything, or he realizes that ToB isn't too overpowered.

[The_Admiral]

mythweavers character sheet maths and a whole lot of time

[Philistine]

I find it amusing that quite a number of people in this thread seem to think that using an optimized full caster will make the DM think "oh hey ToB is not overpowered at all" rather than "oh hey I guess I should ban these casters just like I banned ToB".
It's far from ideal, but at least it should work to get the DM to START thinking about what really is and isn't balanced in the system, rather than knee-jerking that "If it's in the PHB it MUST be Working As Intended!"

[Coidzor]

I find it amusing that quite a number of people in this thread seem to think that using an optimized full caster will make the DM think "oh hey ToB is not overpowered at all" rather than "oh hey I guess I should ban these casters just like I banned ToB".

Get him to ban the entire game and then he won't DM anymore. :smallamused:

Problem Solved! /James

[Zaq]

I still say that the best way to get a group to accept ToB and other subsystems is to offer to run the next campaign (or a side campaign), ban traditional magic, and actively encourage the use of ToB, incarnum, binding, psionics, etc. That's what I did. It worked perfectly.

It's a long-term solution, to be sure, but actually getting people to TRY stuff instead of just knee-jerk reacting to it is pretty much the best way of showing them what it can and cannot do.

[erikun]

I find it amusing that quite a number of people in this thread seem to think that using an optimized full caster will make the DM think "oh hey ToB is not overpowered at all" rather than "oh hey I guess I should ban these casters just like I banned ToB".
Let's get him to ban Commoners next. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7097263&postcount=38)

[Morph Bark]

Let's get him to ban Commoners next. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7097263&postcount=38)

The problem with that build is that it assumes the DM actually gives you a custom item of Handle Animal +7, Traits/Flaws are alowed and that the mentioned organization exists.

[Coidzor]

The problem with that build is that it assumes the DM actually gives you a custom item of Handle Animal +7, Traits/Flaws are alowed and that the mentioned organization exists.

Yes, but the kind of kneejerky person we're discussing is probably not going to think it that far through when they'd see it, being more hung up on the giant dinosrawrs and the banning of commoners as a result.

[erikun]

True, but those are only necessary to produce such a character at such a low level. Even under ordinary circumstances, you should have your Battletitans by 10th level, which should be long enough to produce Chicken-Infested WhirlCleave abuse as well.

[Narren]

I disagree with this.

You're saying, if you make enough bad choices for everyone else, TOB is totally strong!

What about when you make bad choices with TOB? The Crusader with an 18 int, 12 Str, 12 dex, 12 con, and 12 wis? Small size? Sword and board with a dagger and light shield?

Will that be overpowered to a Sorceror 9?

It would be overpowered to a half-orc Sorcerer 9 with a 12 charisma and 18 strength.

There's a difference between "not being optimized" and "making ridiculously poor choices." It doesn't take an optimizer to know that a halfling with a knife and poor stats is not as good of a warrior as the burly fighter with a greatsword.

[Morph Bark]

Yes, but the kind of kneejerky person we're discussing is probably not going to think it that far through when they'd see it, being more hung up on the giant dinosrawrs and the banning of commoners as a result.

Why would he be banning Commoners before banning the Marshal, the Handle Animal skill or Battletitans?

If custom items, the Marshal, the organization, Traits, Flaws and such were banned, but not the Handle Animal skill or Battletitans, then with needing a +41 he would need to be near-epic, at which point it would no longer overpowered to have three controlled Battletitans.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You know you've been in too many optimization discussions in the forums when your character is overpowered, you start thinking of playing a commoner, and then you start wondering how much a baby dire tiger would cost, so you can rear one (at least).

[Tebryn]

It's always distressing to see these threads..."The DM didn't give me what I wanted, so now I'm going to ruin the game to show him!" don't you think that's really rude and selfish? I mean...even if he bans it for reasons -you- don't care for...DM yourself and let him play. It's clear these sorts of people enjoy being in control than actually playing a game with friends.

[ClothedInVelvet]

It's always distressing to see these threads..."The DM didn't give me what I wanted, so now I'm going to ruin the game to show him!" don't you think that's really rude and selfish? I mean...even if he bans it for reasons -you- don't care for...DM yourself and let him play. It's clear these sorts of people enjoy being in control than actually playing a game with friends.

I don't think they're trying to ruin the game. It seems like they're trying to make a point. That point, it seems to me, is: "This class that you won't let me play isn't overpowered, especially not compared to this thing."

If they were trying to break the game just for spite, or to be the only overpowered play just to show off, that's different. But I think they just want a chance to play a fair character.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It's always distressing to see these threads..."The DM didn't give me what I wanted, so now I'm going to ruin the game to show him!" don't you think that's really rude and selfish? I mean...even if he bans it for reasons -you- don't care for...DM yourself and let him play. It's clear these sorts of people enjoy being in control than actually playing a game with friends.

Did you even read the thread? He's not trying to play a druid with all the bells and whistles. :smallconfused:

[Dusk Eclipse]

I'd just like to note that I've been playing D&D for about 5-6 months, and I play 3.5. Also, I'm trying like hell to learn how to optimize, mainly because I'm a powergamer at heart, and I shall never cease to be so.

+1 freaking one!!!