Clerics and Druids, Why is everyone against them?

[Togath]

As the title implys I'm wondering why people think the cleric is over powered, I can kind of understand the druid being considered over powered(mainly if the druid was played by a munchkin), but the cleric seems about the same as a paladin, minus the smite attack, mount, +1/lvl base attack bonus, and martial weapon proficiency. As a note, this isn't a complaining thread, I really would like to understand why clerics are considered over-powered, as ive only GMed a group using a paladin instead of a cleric(so I dont have much experience with clerics in game).

[Curious]

Short Version: Because Clerics have spells.

Long Version: Clerics have a whole list of powerful spells which give them bonuses upon stackable bonuses, which can then be DMM: Persisted to last the whole day. A Paladin or Fighter just can't compete.

[Keld Denar]

Spells >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not spells.

Period.

Anything full BAB, Smite, Mount, etc, can do, spells can do better, more often, more reliably, and usually for the whole party.

[Togath]

Hadn't known until I looked that clerics had non heal spells , just took a look at their list and can understand the views on the cleric a bit better now.

[TheCountAlucard]

Hadn't known until I looked that clerics had non heal spells , just took a look at their list and can understand the views on the cleric a bit better now.And Druid not just gets spells, he also gets the ability to turn into superpowered animals, and an animal companion that's almost as good as a Fighter in its own right.

[huttj509]

Hadn't known until I looked that clerics had non heal spells , just took a look at their list and can understand the views on the cleric a bit better now.


Similarly the druid has some nice buffs and control spells...and can cast them as a bear...while summoning bears...riding a bear.

[erikun]

I assume we're talking about 3.5e?

Then yeah, it's the spells. Take a look at what Holy Word (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holyWord.htm) can do, to every creature nearby, without a saving throw. (The save is for the banishment effect only.) Other spells aren't quite as impressive, but still tend towards the very good side.

The other issue with Clerics is that, with one or two spells, they can stand in or surpass standard melee characters such as the Fighter or Paladin. See Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) for an example. The Druid gets Wild Shape for this purpose.

Beyond that, there have been an unusually large number of Cleric-based threads lately, either for questions or builds or fixes. This isn't much different then the various Wizard's-broken-fixit threads we get occasionally, or the ever popular Monk threads.

P.S. Paladins have some nice abilities with their mounts, especially if you focus on them. Paladin buff spells are good too, but come far later in the game.

[Leon]

People Consider them overpowered due to Spells and what you can potentially do with that resource - However Smart Play and Self restraint in making those choices in a group environment are all people need to not be over the top and game disrupting.

Clerics when played well can make the Whole group massively better, Druids can as well but with less broader options than the Cleric. Druids however have more control options and like to bring a menagerie along.

[HappyBlanket]

On the reason why people dislike Druids:
There's a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207356) currently running that compares the utility and power of a single classed Fighter to a Druid's Animal Companion. Not the whole Druid, mind you. Just the Animal Companion.

[Steward]

On the reason why people dislike Druids:
There's a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207356) currently running that compares the utility and power of a single classed Fighter to a Druid's Animal Companion. Not the whole Druid, mind you. Just the Animal Companion.

If that's accurate, then that has to be pretty humiliating. The only way to balance this out is to give Fighters a sword that can cast quickened 9th level spells as an Epic-level wizard.

[Togath]

Looking at that thread I think I understand now why druids are over-powered if optimized(I hadn't added up the druids animal companion stats before)

[Daverin]

The worst part is, of the classes that are railed as the most broken, the wizard, druid, and cleric and etc, the druid is usually targeted as the one that is the most dangerous in the sense that the others DO take some kind of fu to at least know what are actually good spells. The druid, however, has an animal companion, spontaneous summoning, and wild shape, as well as a bevy of minor class features; they are easy to break out of the box, no optimization required. Ironically, the brokenness aside, they have, in the sense of fun class design, one of the better ones, at least according to one of the class design threads I saw on here somewhere by... someone. Wish I could remember, it was a very good read...

[erikun]

The druid, however, has an animal companion, spontaneous summoning, and wild shape, as well as a bevy of minor class features; they are easy to break out of the box, no optimization required. Ironically, the brokenness aside, they have, in the sense of fun class design, one of the better ones, at least according to one of the class design threads I saw on here somewhere by... someone.
Druids are like psionics and Tome of Battle, in that it is very easy to find and use their highly effective potential. As you mentioned, Clerics and Wizards (especially Wizards) require some knowledge of their spell lists to use effectively; a new Cleric is unlikely to pick the spells that allow them to overpower encounters.

The flip side is that psionics and Tome of Battle are frequently banned just for that reason - it is very easy for a player to reach adequate or full potential by just playing a Psion or Crusader and picking whatever is fun. As such, they tend to outshine the Fighters and Sorcerers still struggling with their choices, and are viewed as "brokenly overpowered" by a lot of newer DMs.

[Daverin]

Indeed. Which is sad. I am a supporter of ToB, and I strongly think the psionics system is a much more fluid and fun version of spellcasting "slots."

[RandomNPC]

Here's an example. Standard 3.5 game.

We had a game run 5 years, to level 16. The drow druid was the only one to survive the entire thing.

By the end his opener for combat was as follows:
Start off in wild shape
Send in Dire Wolf
Summon an elemental
If he felt it was needed he'd toss in flaming sphere on the next round.

It's all about turn economy, he had himself, his pet, his summon, and a flaming sphere doing damage every round.

[Divide by Zero]

Basic optimization for a druid: take Natural Spell, pick animals with high physical stats, and don't use terrible tactics. Wizard might have a higher maximum power level, but druid is certainly easier to break without trying.

[HappyBlanket]

Druids are like psionics and Tome of Battle, in that it is very easy to find and use their highly effective potential. As you mentioned, Clerics and Wizards (especially Wizards) require some knowledge of their spell lists to use effectively; a new Cleric is unlikely to pick the spells that allow them to overpower encounters.

The flip side is that psionics and Tome of Battle are frequently banned just for that reason - it is very easy for a player to reach adequate or full potential by just playing a Psion or Crusader and picking whatever is fun. As such, they tend to outshine the Fighters and Sorcerers still struggling with their choices, and are viewed as "brokenly overpowered" by a lot of newer DMs.

Of course, if you're determining whether or not a class is overpowered by comparing it to the Fighter, you know you're doing something terribly wrong.

...Plus, since when are Psionics and ToB overpowered? And since when has that been the real reason for banning them?

[Leon]

The simple way to reduce to a potentially broken Druid is to be different and interesting and not take the crutch of a feat that natural spell is.

[Saintheart]

Hadn't known until I looked that clerics had non heal spells , just took a look at their list and can understand the views on the cleric a bit better now.

There's also that, whereas Wizards theoretically have to sacrifice higher level spell slots to get their spells to be even stronger/more versatile/permanent -- which in theory limits their power -- Clerics have Divine Metamagic, which removes any need to consume higher level spell slots and instead uses of an ability that is entirely optional and not always required (turning or rebuking undead.) DMM "abuse" is one of the oldest and most powerful tricks that clerics can pull.

[Talya]

The simple way to reduce to a potentially broken Druid is to be different and interesting and not take the crutch of a feat that natural spell is.

Natural Spell is a great feat, don't get me wrong, (and by great I mean, overpowered), and I certainly agree with banning it for several reasons (the strongest of which is to stop druids from spending all day as furries), however...it's not what breaks druids. They're already broken, even without it.

[Bob]

Clerics/Druids may seem more powerful than other casters because the devs folded special abilities and half a fighter into their class features, as if to apologize for the expectation of being the healer. The result is a class with levels worth the weight of like half again the levels other classes in features.

and spells are broken, if you haven't read than enough by now.

[Zaq]

The simple way to reduce to a potentially broken Druid is to be different and interesting and not take the crutch of a feat that natural spell is.

To hell with Natural Spell, you could ban Wild Shape and I'd still put the Druid at T1. Maybe not at "without even trying" levels of power, sure, but that spell list is enough to cause (or fix, depending on perspective) a LOT of problems just on its own. I'd easily rate it above the Cleric list, personally.

[gbprime]

Power is only one aspect of why these casting classes are broken. The other aspect of it is versatility. With the right selection of spells, the cleric or druid can do any job, can be any archtype. And they can change that from day to day.

Skill monkey? Check.
Blaster? Check.
Tank? Check.
Healer? Check.
Summoner? Check.
Controller? Check.
Debuffer? Check.
Detective? Check.
etc...

Meanwhile, all the fighter can do is bash things. (If you're using Tome of Battle, then you're using a Warblade instead and they're really GOOD at bashing things, but still... all they can do is bash things.)

From this perspective, the way to fix it is to use classes like Shugenja, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Dread Necromancer... even Healer... instead of cleric or druid. This locks the player to a more limited set of spells and prevents them from doing everyone else's job better.

[NecroRick]

I can't see the Druid's animal companion getting even into the same ballpark as a dungeoncrasher fighter.

The fighter gets a big lead in feats, he should spend them well. For AC there is always the dreaded and reviled shield also I hear there are things called medium and heavy armour.

Additionally, the fighter gets to spend money on magic items including magic armour and shield! to get better. Whereas the Druid (even if he tries to be an artificer, in which case the Druid is the sucker for this round) has to split the magic items between himself and the animal companion.

The big abuse everyone keeps coming back to? Transforming into a bear and then still casting spells!!! Madness!!! Or perhaps simply silliness? Personally a bear casting spells doesn't strike me as especially game-breaking, and is weaker than 90% or more of the combos that get tossed around here-abouts.

[Coidzor]

I can't see the Druid's animal companion getting even into the same ballpark as a dungeoncrasher fighter.

Because dungeoncrasher makes Fighter playable up until level 8 or so, and is a good choice.

The animal companion can't compare directly with whatever area a fighter decides to optimize his performance in, but with the generally higher physical scores and size, can do many jobs that the fighter would have difficulty fulfilling (grappling, for instance) with less effort and better and still perform in a comparable fashion with the rest of the fighter, and quite easily exceed the fighter in most-to-all areas if the fighter does not have a specialty.

If the druid gets adequate crafting time, then that will actually break WBL by at least doubling it, as well as get exactly the items they want without careful DM micromanagement, in which case the DM is being deliberately duplicitous to allow that feat on the table and so shouldn't really be relied upon for this kind of general scenario.

gbprime: Best balance is not only more T3s on the high end but also more T3s on the low end, so that players have characters that can contribute outside of combat, for instance.

[LordBlades]

I can't see the Druid's animal companion getting even into the same ballpark as a dungeoncrasher fighter.

A standard animal companion, probably not. One that had his feats reshuffled to something useful (like Leap Attack and Shocktrooper for a pouncing animal for example) and is getting shared buffs from druid can probably give a Dungeoncrasher a run for his money.


The fighter gets a big lead in feats, he should spend them well. For AC there is always the dreaded and reviled shield also I hear there are things called medium and heavy armour.

That advantage isn't as big as it seems, many because most worthwhile feat chains aren't long enough. Even classes without bonus feats can complete them, which means they're at least as good as a fighter at doing that thing, or better if their class features complement that feat chain.


Additionally, the fighter gets to spend money on magic items including magic armour and shield! to get better. Whereas the Druid (even if he tries to be an artificer, in which case the Druid is the sucker for this round) has to split the magic items between himself and the animal companion.


What you don't account for is that the druid, being a spellcaster needs less items. Many of the effects for which a fighter needs a magic item for are just a spell away for the druid.

You want to fly? You need either a magic item or flying mounts. Druid can just wildshape into something that flies.
You need a +str item? Druid can just cast Bull's Strength or Bite of the Werewhatever, shared with the animal companion.
You need a magic weapon? Druid can just cast Greater Magic Fang, shared with the animal companion.

[Divide by Zero]

There's also that, whereas Wizards theoretically have to sacrifice higher level spell slots to get their spells to be even stronger/more versatile/permanent -- which in theory limits their power -- Clerics have Divine Metamagic, which removes any need to consume higher level spell slots and instead uses of an ability that is entirely optional and not always required (turning or rebuking undead.) DMM "abuse" is one of the oldest and most powerful tricks that clerics can pull.
Note that it's not at all difficult to create a broken cleric without DMM. Adding that is just icing on the cheesecake.

To hell with Natural Spell, you could ban Wild Shape and I'd still put the Druid at T1. Maybe not at "without even trying" levels of power, sure, but that spell list is enough to cause (or fix, depending on perspective) a LOT of problems just on its own. I'd easily rate it above the Cleric list, personally.
A druid with no class features besides its spellcasting would easily be solid tier 1. Anything with a flexible spell list like that will be tier 1, and the only way to change that would be a significant overhaul of the magic system.

[KingofMadCows]

They get access to every spell in their perspective lists. That means they get more powerful any time a new cleric/druid spell shows up on the WotC website, in a new book, or in Dragon magazine. Wizards at least have to make some sacrifices to gain access to new spells.

[Kojiro]

Hm. Would cutting the spontaneous summoning feature out at least help them be more balanced? Spontaneous healing on a cleric seems useful but being able to throw anything away to basically pull out another party member or three seems a bit much even without... Everything else. Which is a lot. Hm. I don't think a Druid player would be justified in complaining, at least, if you did so.


The big abuse everyone keeps coming back to? Transforming into a bear and then still casting spells!!! Madness!!! Or perhaps simply silliness? Personally a bear casting spells doesn't strike me as especially game-breaking, and is weaker than 90% or more of the combos that get tossed around here-abouts.

Well, at high levels "bear" gets replaced with, say, t-rex. Things like that. A t-rex that can eat people and cast some major spells and that has a bear/wolf/whatever companion (and possibly more thanks to summoned monsters) is pretty obscene, especially when those spells are cleric and wizard level things.

[Talya]

People often forget how customizable the animal companion is, too.

For instance:

Natural Bond. Ooooh, now you've got a -3 Animal Companion at level 4, but have advanced him just as far as a level 1 companion.

Exalted Companion. If you're playing a very Neutral Good druid, this one is great. Because, as mediocre-to-downright-bad as VoP is on a character, once you've got a 3 Int or higher good companion, your animal companion can take vow of poverty. You know how great Vow of Poverty is on an animal companion?

[Kojiro]

Good grief, you can have your pet take a Vow of Poverty? I thought that being poor was an assumed part of being an animal. One that doesn't have the word "dragon" in its name, at least.

[SleepyBadger]

Basic optimization for a druid: take Natural Spell, pick animals with high physical stats, and don't use terrible tactics. Wizard might have a higher maximum power level, but druid is certainly easier to break without trying.
Also it's enough to know the SRD to have a game-breaking druid from very early on. Outside the SRD wizards get the coolest prestige classes, clerics get DMM but a druid can stay on par even if limited to the SRD. Of course high level wizard and cleric spells are more versatile...

[Divide by Zero]

Hm. Would cutting the spontaneous summoning feature out at least help them be more balanced? Spontaneous healing on a cleric seems useful but being able to throw anything away to basically pull out another party member or three seems a bit much even without... Everything else. Which is a lot. Hm. I don't think a Druid player would be justified in complaining, at least, if you did so.

Again, while it would make them slightly less versatile, they'd still be solid tier 1. Only difference is now they have to decide how many bears they want to shoot out in advance.

[urbanwolf]

a lot of these problems seem to be things DM could fix by saying no

no resuffling feats for an animal companion


turning into a T-Rex
has the druid ever met a T-Rex
is the T-rex a native animal to the druids enviroment

Exalted Animal companion takes VoP ( I would just say no)
or the animal demands a fair share of the loot be donated to PETA or something
money hungy PC's freak
and an inteligant animal companion could say no to the durid if the druid does something it does not like

[Zaq]

a lot of these problems seem to be things DM could fix by saying no

no resuffling feats for an animal companion


turning into a T-Rex
has the druid ever met a T-Rex
is the T-rex a native animal to the druids enviroment

Exalted Animal companion takes VoP ( I would just say no)
or the animal demands a fair share of the loot be donated to PETA or something
money hungy PC's freak
and an inteligant animal companion could say no to the durid if the druid does something it does not like

Oberoni much?

[urbanwolf]

Oberoni much?

No

I am not making any new rules

Ph say a druid had to be famiier with a animal form before it can take it

a creture with an Int being intelligence and having ideas is not something they make rules for but it is RP stuff

no reshuffling feats you are supposed to use the base stats of a creature of its kind so you are stuck with Alertness and toughness and other less savory feats until you get some bonus hit dice

[Engine]

I'll try to explain.


but the cleric seems about the same as a paladin, minus the smite attack

Smite Evil is useful, but it's still ONE attack. At higher levels you could use that just 5 times a day. Yes, you could do a lot of damage, but it's a scarce commodity. And if your enemy is out of range you couldn't use that at all.


mount

Nice, and some builds use the mount to great effectiveness. Anyway you should consider that a Large mount (for a medium sized creature like a human) is useless in a dungeon or similar place.


+1/lvl base attack bonus

The BAB is really overestimated: a Paladin has 5 points in BAB and one attack more the Cleric. The Cleric has 5 more spell levels. With more BAB you just attack, with 5 spell levels you could do much more.


martial weapon proficiency

A Cleric really doesn't need that much. And if you really want that, just pick the War Domain (which is two feats, you get proficiency and focus in the favored weapon of the Cleric's deity).


I really would like to understand why clerics are considered over-powered, as ive only GMed a group using a paladin instead of a cleric(so I dont have much experience with clerics in game).

Well, you should consider that spells in D&D are more useful that martial skill. A Paladin, for the most part, could just fight. Yes, a Paladin has some utilities and sometimes he could use them to some effect. But the Cleric has a flippin' ton of utilities, thanks to her spell list. While a Paladin, for the most part, could just charge and maybe smite, a Cleric has more options. A lot more.

To understand why Clerics are considered overpowered one should read carefully the Cleric spell list and forget the notion that a Cleric is just someone who heals and maybe swings a mace for 1D8 damage.

[Gametime]

no reshuffling feats you are supposed to use the base stats of a creature of its kind so you are stuck with Alertness and toughness and other less savory feats until you get some bonus hit dice

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that every creature has to have the exact feats listed in the Monster Manual, but as far as I can tell it isn't supported by the actual text.

It wouldn't matter much, though. A druid without an animal companion is still easily tier 1. A druid with nothing but druid spellcasting is probably still tier 1; restrictions on wild shape and animal companions aren't going to solve the problem.

[SleepyBadger]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that every creature has to have the exact feats listed in the Monster Manual, but as far as I can tell it isn't supported by the actual text.

It is stated in the PHB that the druid's animal companion is at the start a completely typical creature of its kind, so logically this means you have to use the exact stats as given in the MM.

[Zaq]

It is stated in the PHB that the druid's animal companion is at the start a completely typical creature of its kind, so logically this means you have to use the exact stats as given in the MM.

And that's what Psionic Reformation and/or Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos are for.

[tiercel]

Not that this pretty much hasn't all been said in one place or another, but in summary:

1) Full spellcasting. You can appeal to the "tier system" but it basically boils down to "the more spellcasting you get, the better."

1a) Really full spellcasting -- you can ready any spell from any source allowed at any time you prepare, at no cost to your character. Other characters have to find/purchase spells for a "spells available" repository, or have a limited number of "spells known" to dole out.

For example, simply adding Spell Compendium to a previously Core game vastly and instantly expands a Cleric's or Druid's arsenal without the character doing anything, merely by virtue of the book suddenly being usable.

2) Few real weaknesses -- decent HD, armored casting, two good saves (the important ones against save-or-lose; Ref saves tend to hit HP, which matters even less to characters packing healing).

3) Even more goodies: Clerics get Turn Undead, which by itself is only situationally useful, but with [Divine] feats can be turned into something-good-all-the-time, most brokenly, Divine Metamagic (Persist). Domains shovel out some pretty nice abilities and an even further expanded spell list.

Druids basically stop ever being humanoid-shaped around 6th level thanks to Wild Shape/Natural Spell, and they get pretty much at least a free cohort thanks to Animal Companion.

------

Presumably, what's supposed to keep the high power level of these classes in check is that they're "supposed to" function as heal/buff-bots for the party, and all the Phenomenal Cosmic Power is a bribe for taking one for the team.

There's a small amount of truth to this -- the more selfish a divine caster is (or can afford to be because there is more than one divine caster), the more they can focus on their own Awesome Power. But... only a somewhat small amount of truth. Realistically, most healing over much of the campaign is accomplished out-of-combat by use of items, be they humble wands of cure light wounds, the rather more effective wands of lesser vigor, or non-expendable items like Eternal Wands or Belts of Healing. So unlike, say, the 2e "bandage" cleric, relatively few spell slots have to be "mortgaged" on behalf of the party.

It's also harder to "screw up" a Cleric or Druid than other full casters -- partly because they can completely reset a "bad" (or even a good) spell selection for free the next day, and also because they don't have to spend any effort compensating for small Hit Dice, theoretical lack of armor, or weaker saves.

[Talya]

no reshuffling feats you are supposed to use the base stats of a creature of its kind so you are stuck with Alertness and toughness and other less savory feats until you get some bonus hit dice

I'm not a fan of feat reshuffling.

It takes as little as 6 levels for a druid companion to get 2 levelling feats. (+4 Hit Dice will give you 2 bonus feats if the companion started with 2 HD, 5 HD, 8 HD, 11 HD, etc.)

It typically doesn't have much for class features, so the feats from VOP aren't going to matter. It's the numerical advantages you want for your Exalted Animal Companion, and it gets those at whatever level it gets VOP.

[Midnight_v]

The real reason people hate on CoDzilla?
1. Because CoDzilla was the sun that shed light on the LIE that "Core Only" was a balancing factor for playing 3.5.
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.
Clerics and Druid being as strong as they are in many ways honestly wasn't the issue, the issue was that they were used to do the one thing that is unforgivable by many people.
"Prove them Wrong."
2. There's a post earlier in the thread about a Drow Druid who was the ONLY char to survive the whole campaign. . .
I believe that story to be true but I want you to understand that the horrible thing about that is this: MOST of the chars are supposed to survive the campaign. Believe it or not... the problem is that most of the other classes are too weak to deal with challenges of certain cr's. So in someways when you look at the CoDzilla, and then someone looks at the Fighter, the problem is that the fighter can't really do his job unless you're somekind of optimization whiz with 40 book to look through... like me :smallsmile:!

[Leon]

The fighter does his job in a group by hitting things hard with a weapon, it doesn't need excessive optimization (no class does) to be a useful character.

[Kaeso]

The fighter does his job in a group by hitting things hard with a weapon, it doesn't need excessive optimization (no class does) to be a useful character.

That's the whole problem! The fighters job is "hit stuff", which would be fair enough in a balanced game. The problem, however, is that the clerics job is "heal the wounded, weaken the enemy, buff the party and hit stuff (preferably harder than a fighter on steroids could ever hope to do)". If you look at it like that, even an effective fighter is kind of redundant. In your average "fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard" party, the cleric and wizard could easily take over the roles of fighter and rogue (especially if the cleric is a cloistered cleric with the trickery domain (for sneaky stuff) and dragon domain (for diplomancy)). Actually, a "wizard-cleric-druid-donkey that carries their phat loot" would be better than the 'standard' party.

Even if we limit ourselves to just "making sure the bad guy dies", the fighter is outshined by all three Core big boys. Let's imagine a very common scenario: the big bad can fly, what does the fighter do? He switches to a bow, but unless he's completely specialized to fight specifically with a bow, he'll suck. On the other hand, a wizard uses overland flight and uses a few blasty spells (I know, unoptimized) to fry the big bad to a crisp. The druid changes into a strong animal that can fly and summons more strong, flying animals. The cleric uses animal devotion or air walk, casually strolls up to the big bad with a big smirk on his face due to how he can simply defy gravity because his god loves him so much, and slaps the big bad in the face with his 1d6+OMGWTFBBQ damage. Even if we assume that the fighter is purely specialised in archery, a zen archery cleric will more often than not be better (because his archery skills are keyed off his primary casting stat, making sure it's pretty much the only stat he'll ever need) and he still has some spells to back him up if archery proves to be sub-optimal in a given situation.

Another problem a fighter can encounter in his "hit stuff" task is insanely high AC and/or damage reduction. To overcome this obstacle a fighter needs really good rolls and/or magic weapons and/or good armor + hp to make sure he can outlive the big bad in this test of endurance (pro-tip: if the big bad has such a high AC and/or DR and a decent damage output, this isn't going to happen anytime soon). The big three however get to choose between:
a) summoning something that can overcome their DR and/or AC, or even to just act as a meat shield.
b) blasting spells that bypass AC and/or DR
c) weakening his defenses, then smash his face in with a good ol' mace
d) using other means to take care of him (forcecage + cloudkill, hold person + coup de grace and I'm sure there are other ways to take care of it. Ask one of the Cleric- or Wizard-freaks on this board).

Now that that's out of the way, we should know that flexibility is the name of the game. Imagine a situation where hitting stuff in the face isn't the best course of action, for example when you need to convince a heavily guarded baron to finance your cause. The fighter will just sit in a corner while he sulks over how he's useless. The big three, however, can use spells to improve their diplomatic prowess, and the druid and cleric even have diplomacy as class skills! If you take a cloistered cleric with the dragon domain he also gets bluff and intimidate as class skills and the spells "voice of the dragon" to boot, which gives him a +10 to diplomacy, bluff and intimidate. A bard with glibness is probably the only thing that can out-diplomance said cloistered cleric.

Now, what if said baron will somehow refuse to budge and joins the Big Bad's side instead? One way to take care of this (dependant on your alignment) is to assassinate him. A fighter can't do this unless he has some magic items/potions especially for this job or a rogue that's willing to drag him along through a portable hole or something like that. The wizard, however, can use the invisibility spells combined with fly to be unseen and unheard, the druid just changes into an unsuspicious animal (a cat, mouse, owl or what have you) and the cleric has a spell called ghost touch which reduces the AC penalty from his heavy armor. I'm not too familliar with other spells on the cleric list that deal with this problem, but I know that a (cloistered) cleric with the trickery domain gets a lot of stealth skills as class skills.

This demonstrates that even a fighter who's very good at his job gets out-classed by the big three in what's supposed to be his only purpose, and he's useless unless the situation specifically demands that you crack some skulls. Of course, the best retort would be "the fighter isn't supposed to be a solo player, he has party members that can give him the buffs required". This is a very good retort, but let's think about it this way: what would make the wizard more effective, a fighter that needs half of his spells, or a cleric that can provide himself with all the spells he needs and have some to spare for his wizard buddy?

[FMArthur]

I actually do find it to be only the noncasting parts of the druid that make them unfun to play alongside. The prepared, full-progression casting is certainly their most powerful feature and is the most obviously rigged, but only when he goes into melee does he actually make other party members want to take their stuff and go home.

A solidly-built beatstick can make do with casters in play that don't try to take his job; they may be making all the enemies insensate cripples, but the beatsticks can still have a role in making sure they never recover or in mopping up other targets. This can be a lame, inglorious task if the casters are heavy-handed in their methods, but at the end of the day it still lets them have a purpose.

It takes no effort to make a wizard that lets them have their fun. It's pretty easy for clerics to get along with or support that as well. But it takes a conscious effort on the part of the druid to not take over weaker classes' jobs entirely, and can take over 2 - 3 such characters' jobs with merely accidental choices.

[Kaeso]

I actually do find it to be only the noncasting parts of the druid that make them unfun to play alongside. The prepared, full-progression casting is certainly their most powerful feature and is the most obviously rigged, but only when he goes into melee does he actually make other party members want to take their stuff and go home.

A solidly-built beatstick can make do with casters in play that don't try to take his job; they may be making all the enemies insensate cripples, but the beatsticks can still have a role in making sure they never recover or in mopping up other targets. This can be a lame, inglorious task if the casters are heavy-handed in their methods, but at the end of the day it still lets them have a purpose.

It takes no effort to make a wizard that lets them have their fun. It's pretty easy for clerics to get along with or support that as well. But it takes a conscious effort on the part of the druid to not take over weaker classes' jobs entirely, and can take over 2 - 3 such characters' jobs with merely accidental choices.

I fully agree, but isn't that what the shapeshifting variant from PHB II sort of does? It limits (actually, even gimps) the druids wildshape and gets rid of their animal companion, making them more 'beatstick friendly'.

[FMArthur]

Compared to Wild Shape and Animal Companion, yes... But a Barbarian would still give the entire left half of his body to get Shapeshift instead of Rage.

[Divide by Zero]

The fighter does his job in a group by hitting things hard with a weapon, it doesn't need excessive optimization (no class does) to be a useful character.

But if the cleric and the druid and the wizard are all better fighters than the fighter is, then they all have to hold back in order for him to be relevant. It constantly raises the question of "Why did we even drag this loser along?" and really hurts verisimilitude.

And he's still useless out of combat.

[Midnight_v]

The fighter does his job in a group by hitting things hard with a weapon, it doesn't need excessive optimization (no class does) to be a useful character.
Wow. Thats such a falsehood that I don't know if you're being funny or not. Fighters specifically CAN'T do that without excessive optimization. He doesn't hit things hard enough, especially not the things that do the same job as him on team evil.
Unless you know your optimization you really are not going to be able to the things that people think when they think of the archtype.


But if the cleric and the druid and the wizard are all better fighters than the fighter is, then they all have to hold back in order for him to be relevant. It constantly raises the question of "Why did we even drag this loser along?" and really hurts verisimilitude.

And he's still useless out of combat.

Its so funny though because Dm's still ban the ToB? I see "My Dm banned the TOB" but you never hear things like "The Big 3, held back so the Warblade could be relevant"
Further, pretty much anytime you see a fighter doing things like Shocktrooper, +Archery. People start saying "broken" and "I can't challenge this guy" why?
The don't understand the game mechanically.

[Engine]

Its so funny though because Dm's still ban the ToB? I see "My Dm banned the TOB" but you never hear things like "The Big 3, held back so the Warblade could be relevant"
Further, pretty much anytime you see a fighter doing things like Shocktrooper, +Archery. People start saying "broken" and "I can't challenge this guy" why?
The don't understand the game mechanically.

This.
I had a lot of DMs banning everything that could be useful for melee\ranged characters (items & feats especially) but didn't say a word about the primary casters. It seems to me that a lot of people see the Fighter (or Warblade) as the powerplayer's choice.

[Midnight_v]

This.
I had a lot of DMs banning everything that could be useful for melee\ranged characters (items & feats especially) but didn't say a word about the primary casters. It seems to me that a lot of people see the Fighter (or Warblade) as the powerplayer's choice.

The thing that bugs me about it is that... the second they realized "OMG... CoDzilla! CODZILLA!" they start hating on them as the power players choice and the undertown seems to be "the problem is with CoD" No. . .the problem is:
1. With certain classes not being able to do thier jobs.
2. You being a Dm, but not having any system mastery. Thus you lack the mechanical acumen to really "challenge" anyone who has the dimmest stirrings that Monte Cooke and the boys might have made D&D with intentionally bad options.

I'm not tying to lambast anybody but really you shouldn't be dm'ing until you have somekind of system mastery, at least in 3.5, and honestly...
People don't want to hear that.
Its a truth, that many people just look at and sneer, because it kinda puts the spotlight on them as being bad, but its not that you're BAD. It's more along the lines of "We can all improve". Just like if someone was a dm who created all bland Npc's, or only runs the same plot over and over again.
We can all improve. Thing is... some of use aren't even willing to try.
So yeah. . .

Clerics and Druids right now are getting lots of negative attention for being too good, but sadly they're likely about the right power level, for the progression of most stories, and considering that the CR system is innaccurate as all get out.
Thing is they're "Please don't optimize, this" classes.

Where as fighters(and other melees are) Please optimized this if you intend to play.

[Gametime]

It is stated in the PHB that the druid's animal companion is at the start a completely typical creature of its kind, so logically this means you have to use the exact stats as given in the MM.

Since feats (and, as far as I can tell, only feats) are specifically mentioned as being customizable in the Monster Manual, I wouldn't consider an animal with new feats to be atypical. Within reason, of course; the feats should at least be things you'd expect the animal to be able to figure out on its own.

Admittedly, that's a judgement call, but I think there's some leeway in the text.

[Fox Box Socks]

Thing is they're "Please don't optimize, this" classes.
Cleric yes. Druid not so much. All you need to do to break the Druid is crack open the MM1 and look at the stats for the list of monsters provided in the PHB, then take Natural Spell. That's it. That is literally all you need to do to make the Druid the nastiest, game-balance destroyingest PC this side of the Mississippi.

The sad part? It happens by accident. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen a fresh player, completely green to DnD, trick out their Druid in this way without ever even going online to look at what the community thinks the strongest options are. Natural Spell is right there in the PHB as a Druid-only feat; why would anyone ever not take it? It takes some digging to figure out that riding dogs and cats are the way to go for animal companions, but even a Druid with a wolf is crazy powerful. Augment Summoning and the like are no-brainers, and I'm 90% sure the PHB2 actually encourages Druids to take them (and by "encourages" I mean there's a little blurb that says "If you are a Druid, you should probably have Augment Summoning").

The real problem with the Tier 1 classes is that they're so good at what they do that players not trying to make the strongest character possible sometimes will anyway.

[Big Fau]

turning into a T-Rex
has the druid ever met a T-Rex
is the T-rex a native animal to the druids enviroment


Hate to say this, but this is indeed an Oberoni fallacy. Any Druid with enough ranks in Knowledge (Nature) can just choose to make a Knowledge check to learn about a T-Rex, and then Wildshape into it.

As for the feat shuffling thing: That works as long as the Druid keeps upgrading to the highest HD animal Companion possible, but if a 9th level Druid takes a Wolf for a companion, he is free to determine what feats it gains beyond the wolf's initial stats. There is nothing in the books stating that either the DM or player in control of the druid gets to, but the feats are required by the rules and thus have to be selected.

[Midnight_v]

Cleric yes. Druid not so much. All you need to do to break the Druid is crack open the MM1 and look at the stats for the list of monsters provided in the PHB, then take Natural Spell. That's it. That is literally all you need to do to make the Druid the nastiest, game-balance destroyingest PC this side of the Mississippi.
Maybe...
Maybe, the ability to become any moster of your hit dice is too strong. However... there something about the fact that you're generally fighting monsters above your hit dice. Or you're fighting monsters with powers that are pretty harcore save or lose specialists, (illithids, vampires and other mind controllers). What I'm trying to convey here is that if we play honestly the MMI, many of the monsters have what is generally refered to as the "Awesome" tag.
So when you say "Balance Destroying" what I think people don't consider is how hardcore some of these encounters really should be.
The thing is its really only CoDzilla or the paranoid wizard who has a good chance of defeating many of these monsters in a dungeon setting. Its easier if the monster is attacking your city, but nominially adventurers dont' have homefield advantage all that much.
... I wanna go into this a bit more... but I'm trying to do the "brevity is the soul of with thing" nowadays.
Hmm... so this:


"I've heard some people complain that playing a spell casting Polar bear at certain levels is broke and ruins the game balance.
The thing they fail to consider though? Just how many Spellcasting Flying Polar bears they are going to have to fight in the life of a pc.." -Midnight_v

[Engine]

Clerics and Druids right now are getting lots of negative attention for being too good, but sadly they're likely about the right power level, for the progression of most stories, and considering that the CR system is innaccurate as all get out.
Thing is they're "Please don't optimize, this" classes.

Well, I have nothing against Clerics, Druids (and Wizards, for good sake). I have something against DMs with the mindset that a well played (from a mechanical point of view, of course) Fighter is overpowered, but a well played Cleric is just fine.

(Today my gnome Diviner, 4th level, laughed in front of the Fighter Villain with one cast of Grease on his weapon. My character isn't optimized - I even spent a feat on a Dragonmark just for roleplaying reasons - but I can't be too dumb. Yeah, well played Fighters are really overpowered...)

[SleepyBadger]

Hate to say this, but this is indeed an Oberoni fallacy. Any Druid with enough ranks in Knowledge (Nature) can just choose to make a Knowledge check to learn about a T-Rex, and then Wildshape into it.
...
Or the druid could have had some sort of druid master in his learning years who was able to wildshape... or even use shapechange... theoretically he could have met the whole arsenal of creatures available at 1st level...

[Midnight_v]

Well, I have nothing against Clerics, Druids (and Wizards, for good sake). I have something against DMs with the mindset that a well played (from a mechanical point of view, of course) Fighter is overpowered, but a well played Cleric is just fine.

(Today my gnome Diviner, 4th level, laughed in front of the Fighter Villain with one cast of Grease on his weapon. My character isn't optimized - I even spent a feat on a Dragonmark just for roleplaying reasons - but I can't be too dumb. Yeah, well played Fighters are really overpowered...)

Good sir. We have no argument. In fact we have the same complaint, it seems. Well met.
Oh and what'd you think of this?

"I've heard some people complain that playing a spell casting Polar bear at certain levels is broke and ruins the game balance.
The thing they fail to consider though? Just how many Spellcasting Flying Polar bears they are going to have to fight in the life of a pc.." -Midnight_v

[MeeposFire]

Maybe...
Maybe, the ability to become any moster of your hit dice is too strong. However... there something about the fact that you're generally fighting monsters above your hit dice. Or you're fighting monsters with powers that are pretty harcore save or lose specialists, (illithids, vampires and other mind controllers). What I'm trying to convey here is that if we play honestly the MMI, many of the monsters have what is generally refered to as the "Awesome" tag.
So when you say "Balance Destroying" what I think people don't consider is how hardcore some of these encounters really should be.
The thing is its really only CoDzilla or the paranoid wizard who has a good chance of defeating many of these monsters in a dungeon setting. Its easier if the monster is attacking your city, but nominially adventurers dont' have homefield advantage all that much.
... I wanna go into this a bit more... but I'm trying to do the "brevity is the soul of with thing" nowadays.
Hmm... so this:

Actually changing into monsters isn't too strong. For one a MoMF with a WS ranger as the base is very tier 3 which is what many people are fine with. Further changing into animals was not so much a problem in 2e and 1e but that is because changing forms was very different back then. In 2e changing into a bear at high levels was near useless since you had to use the bears THAC0 which was really bad at that point and the bears damage was also too low (bears did not have str scores and the static damage that comes with that back then).

[Philistine]

The "completely typical for an animal of its type" clause also specifies a level one druid's animal companion.

[Togo]

I've found fighters to be very useful. They're very hard to play, far more so than a wizard, cleric or druid.

The job isn't just to hit stuff. The job is to face off on the front line. That involves hitting stuff, getting hit, manipulating the trade off in your groups favour, and making sure you're pursuing the right options. Playing a good fighter is about what's good for the group. Putting yourself in harm's way and trying to stack your personal combat prowress is almost always a bad idea for the individual, but it gives the rest of the group the edge that allows them, for example, to play a character that's really weak in defence but has a great selection of spells. That's why, if you just compare what each can do by themselves, or worse, what they can do to eachother, you get a distorted picture.

Part of the reason why some people don't rate front-line fighters is because they play them badly. Part of the reason is that, yes, there are now enough spells out there that a spellcaster can prepare for almost any eventually. The key word there is can. The sample cleric being discussed is cloistered, has the war and trickeryand dragon domains, divine metamagic, and apparently enough rounds and spell slots to heal, buff themselves, debuff the enemy and still full attack every round. I'd love to see his sheet. Flexibility is key yes, but spellcasters have to make choices, typically at the start of the day, on what to focus on and what not to.

Take your cue from what people choose to ban. One of my groups has come up with a fairly lengthy list, including divine metamagic, VoP and polymorph, sure, but also including two-weapon fighting with armour spikes, the marshal, and some of the more egregious archer builds. So long as you avoid the really cheesiest builds, a balanced party still works better than all spellcasters, although I'm sure that's a lot of fun, just like a playing an all-rogue party is great fun. I'm not saying that the spellcasters aren't powerful, or even that they aren't too powerful, merely that if you've reached the stage of calling all front-liners useless, no matter how well played, then you're probably overstating the case.

[Midnight_v]

Actually changing into monsters isn't too strong.
I don't think so either.


Cleric yes. Druid not so much. All you need to do to break the Druid is crack open the MM1 and look at the stats for the list of monsters provided in the PHB, then take Natural Spell. That's it.
This gentleman seems to think thats its a big part of the problem though.

As stated above I really think that a big part of people suddenly NOT liking druids, is the whole "Eye opening experience" thing in which they learn that banning all those books isn't going to help preserve balance you're just being unfair to you non caster players.
Honestly magic is ... Magic can get pretty wonky powerful in D&D. Thing is the monsters have it too. IN SPADES.

The suck part is the guy with the twin swords doesn't get to be the hero who lives through it all and defeats the Evlulz, and that challenges some peoples perspectives.
Likewise ... and this is what Engine was saying, when someone actually creates a fighter that can do ANYTHING well, it leads to complaints. Which likely stems from the fact that they have to do 1 thing well, the spam it till they can invest enough resources to do a second thing well... and they rarely get enough to do a third thing and not be somekind of science experiment race.

Its a multifaceted problem. It irks me though that how many people ONLY look at it from one narrow perspective.

EDIT
I wanted to take a sec and comment on the above poster.

Flexibility is key yes, but spellcasters have to make choices, typically at the start of the day, on what to focus on and what not to. Agree. When discussing theoreticals, I too have noted that any theoretical caster has everything he needs. They really won't they have to make choices. So at somepoint they could make the wrong choice. The thing is they have choices at all. So you're right, overall.
However...
The last paragrapch of your post went into somestrange land about banning armor spikes. Its was very LOL,WuT?. Cause that means someone in that group doesn't know what they're talking about mechanically and are banning things that are absolutely Unbroken. I started to do a line by line but its not even that crucial, banning archery focused builds ends with only casters being useful in ranged combat beyond 60ft on an open plain. Which is sad.

So long as you avoid the really cheesiest builds, a balanced party still works better than all spellcasters
This is totally contingent on how you define "cheesiest" it sounds like your definition includes any caster whose dedicated to doing anything but evocation.
An all caster party works better than a balanced party if the the All caster party is balanced. I could show you how they work better in every way if you like. Though if you're arguing that anycaster that is gishing, is cheesy, you've insulted gotten rid of many favored archtypes for many people and some our favorite chars of all time.

Frontliners is a very wierd term but you have to understand that the job is pretty easily replaced via Caster. Further well it should be, the option at least, cause there are monsters in D&D that NOBODY should engage in melee.

[Kantolin]

If you ask me, while clerics aren't quite druids in their 'Hey I can turn into a bear? Cool!'... they're pretty breakable.

I was playing a timid party-healing goblin cleric, and hit level 7. Upon doing so, I looked in the PHB for 4th level cleric spells, to find that... well, most of them are fairly dumb to memorize, and then there's divine power.

I ended up memorizing spell immunity and neutralize poison, and never used them during the time I had them memorized. Each time I was picking spells... there was divine power, just asking me to be a lateral to the party's fighter... just sitting there...

[Kaeso]

I've found fighters to be very useful. They're very hard to play, far more so than a wizard, cleric or druid.

The job isn't just to hit stuff. The job is to face off on the front line. That involves hitting stuff, getting hit, manipulating the trade off in your groups favour, and making sure you're pursuing the right options. Playing a good fighter is about what's good for the group. Putting yourself in harm's way and trying to stack your personal combat prowress is almost always a bad idea for the individual, but it gives the rest of the group the edge that allows them, for example, to play a character that's really weak in defence but has a great selection of spells. That's why, if you just compare what each can do by themselves, or worse, what they can do to eachother, you get a distorted picture.

Part of the reason why some people don't rate front-line fighters is because they play them badly. Part of the reason is that, yes, there are now enough spells out there that a spellcaster can prepare for almost any eventually. The key word there is can. The sample cleric being discussed is cloistered, has the war and trickeryand dragon domains, divine metamagic, and apparently enough rounds and spell slots to heal, buff themselves, debuff the enemy and still full attack every round. I'd love to see his sheet. Flexibility is key yes, but spellcasters have to make choices, typically at the start of the day, on what to focus on and what not to.

As far as I'm concerned (but I could be wrong) a fighter won't be able to do that without magic equipment and some good buffs from the wizard or cleric. In this situation, the fighter is only able to fullfil his only role by having casters spend spells on him. Let me repeat that: to do the only thing he's good at, a fighter needs magic, which he has no access to. I think a wizard would rather have a cleric as his companion than a fighter. The cleric is also a good frontline fighter (having heavy armor proficiency, proficiency with all simple weapons + one martial weapon if he has the war domain and only a marginally worse hp and BAB (both of which are solved by divine power)) and from time to time the wizard might even expend a spell on his behalf, but said cleric has his own spells too. It's the same story for a druid, but with more bears.

Now ToB classes (especially the crusader) are a different ballgame. They are not only much better in combat due to their manouvres, but can actually force the enemy to attack them, something the average fighter can only dream of doing.

[Midnight_v]

As far as I'm concerned (but I could be wrong) a fighter won't be able to do that without magic equipment and some good buffs from the wizard or cleric. In this situation, the fighter is only able to fullfil his only role by having casters spend spells on him. Let me repeat that: to do the only thing he's good at, a fighter needs magic, which he has no access to. I think a wizard would rather have a cleric as his companion than a fighter. The cleric is also a good frontline fighter (having heavy armor proficiency, proficiency with all simple weapons + one martial weapon if he has the war domain and only a marginally worse hp and BAB (both of which are solved by divine power)) and from time to time the wizard might even expend a spell on his behalf, but said cleric has his own spells too. It's the same story for a druid, but with more bears.
Maybe... maybe people just hate this?
HATE IT.


Now ToB classes (especially the crusader) are a different ballgame. They are not only much better in combat due to their manouvres, but can actually force the enemy to attack them, something the average fighter can only dream of doing
...but then I get the idea that many people hate this too.

I'm starting to get the idea that people hate Melee Characters in someway, secretly.
They never really say it but when there is a melee character keeping up with or exceeding the monsters in damage. Theres always a complaint.
Where as even if we take away the ability from ALL CASTERS TO FIGHT.
Casting would still includ things like "Save... or Die" which I wonder if some people like better becaues the dm can always cheat that I guess.
Maybe its becaue fighting in D&D isn't like fighting in WoW or something along those lines. People seem to keep saying "tank"... which would imply that you're a guy in heavy armor protecting weak phsyically casters.

... so I'm thinking may some of the reason that there's all this animosity is that, many people (not that I've NEVER SAID "All, Most, or You, if myu post offends you at all) many people get upset because they're talking about this but they're trying thier best to defend the sacred cow.

Sacred Cow:
"Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue" = The party.
"Add a bard" = Five man band.

So the idea... that

"Wizard, Wizard, Cleric Druid" = The party
"Add a monk" = for the Lulz
"Add a sorcerer" = for the fun.
Is more effective, just offends some people cause they're partial to what they've always been taught works.

Especially when you get into tings like
"Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Druid" = The party.
"Add a binder" = For the variety.
Too much anime...
...Just makes people foam a the mouth sometimes... So it occurs to me that many people aren't going to be happy with ANY change from that original paradigm, sometimes

[Kaeso]

Maybe... maybe people just hate this?
HATE IT.


...but then I get the idea that many people hate this too.

I'm starting to get the idea that people hate Melee Characters in someway, secretly.
They never really say it but when there is a melee character keeping up with or exceeding the monsters in damage. Theres always a complaint.
Where as even if we take away the ability from ALL CASTERS TO FIGHT.
Casting would still includ things like "Save... or Die" which I wonder if some people like better becaues the dm can always cheat that I guess.
Maybe its becaue fighting in D&D isn't like fighting in WoW or something along those lines. People seem to keep saying "tank"... which would imply that you're a guy in heavy armor protecting weak phsyically casters.

... so I'm thinking may some of the reason that there's all this animosity is that, many people (not that I've NEVER SAID "All, Most, or You, if myu post offends you at all) many people get upset because they're talking about this but they're trying thier best to defend the sacred cow.

Sacred Cow:
"Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue" = The party.
"Add a bard" = Five man band.

So the idea... that

"Wizard, Wizard, Cleric Druid" = The party
"Add a monk" = for the Lulz
"Add a sorcerer" = for the fun.
Is more effective, just offends some people cause they're partial to what they've always been taught works.

Especially when you get into tings like
"Crusader, Warblade, Swordsage, Druid" = The party.
"Add a binder" = For the variety.
Too much anime...
...Just makes people foam a the mouth sometimes... So it occurs to me that many people aren't going to be happy with ANY change from that original paradigm, sometimes

I agree that the casters can get away with ridiculous stuff while a decent melee class always gets called out on being 'too anime', but I think that our train of thought is mostly to blame. When we think of magic, we think of things that would in no way be comprimisable with modern science, like a man that flies on his own strength, throws around balls of fire, changes shape, cures wounds etc. Phrases like 'a wizard did it' or 'it's magic, I ain't gotta explain sh*t' perfectly express the common sentiments among DnD players. However, a melee class is limited to the rules of physics. I remember a guy I played a PbP game with saying that warblades are too anime (he referred to ToB as BoWFM btw) and completely unrealistic because a round represents six seconds and a warblade with the raging mongoose strike can make 4 x OMGWTFBBQ attacks in those six seconds.

:smallsigh: If you're going to complain about that, then why not call out the druid on his ability to change into a bear and summon bears out of thin air?

IMHO ToB being a bit 'anime' is a good thing, because anime is known for 'normal' melee focused characters performing insane feats of strength/skill, which is exactly what DnD needs to make melee a viable alternative to CoDzilla. I actually remember a demotivational poster that perfectly expressed my thoughts on this: it depicted Goku as a swordsage and Hercule (or Mr. Satan outside of the US) as a monk (the implications are obvious).

[Coidzor]

People. They love hating things.

[Fox Box Socks]

Honestly magic is ... Magic can get pretty wonky powerful in D&D. Thing is the monsters have it too. IN SPADES
Without getting into an Edition War, because God knows we don't need another one of those, this is a terrible way to approach game balance.

It's like if one of the classes gets a free rocket launcher at level 1, and then you give all the monsters rocket launchers to compensate. It's just going to make the guy without a rocket launcher suck even more.

[TroubleBrewing]

So long as you avoid the really cheesiest builds, a balanced party still works better than all spellcasters,

This absolutely is not true. I challenge you to build a "balanced" first level party that "works better" than a first level party of all spellcasters will. If it works at first level, it works at every level, because spellcasters scale quadratically.


I'm not saying that the spellcasters aren't powerful, or even that they aren't too powerful, merely that if you've reached the stage of calling all front-liners useless, no matter how well played, then you're probably overstating the case.

Nope. Not overstating at all. With spellcasters in the party, you have absolutely no need for frontliners.

Fighter: Need me to stand in front of you while you cast spells so you don't get grokked?

Wizard: Nah. Fly.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to fly in front of you so you don't get grokked by a mook with a bow?

Wizard: Nah. Mirror Image.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to charge the mooks and deal some damage?

Wizard: Fell Drain Magic Missile. Nah. Druid cleaned up the BBEG during the two rounds it took me to cast those spells. I just nailed the group of mooks with that spell I just said out loud.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to go make dinner or something?

Wizard: Nah. Cleric's got that covered, and the Bard is Prestidigitation'ing some flavor into the food. Plus, you don't really have the skills to spare for Craft: Cooking, do you?

Fighter: Oh. Damn.

Frontliners = useless. I'm currently playing a Cleric who is frontlining for a party consisting of a Paladin, a Knight, and a Rogue. I'm not wearing heavy armor. Or any armor, actually. DMM suits me just fine.

[Engine]

I've found fighters to be very useful. They're very hard to play, far more so than a wizard, cleric or druid.
The job isn't just to hit stuff. The job is to face off on the front line. That involves hitting stuff, getting hit

Yes, but how?
There's no mechanic in the Fighter class that could do that. In my current group my Wizard gets targeted a lot more than the tank.
Unfortunately the Fighter could do nothing about that, D&D has no aggro system for the Fighter class. And by the way a Fighter isn't really that durable without magic. Yes, she has a lot of HP. But she could be entagled, blinded, slowed, paralyzed, stunned and much more. And she could do little about that. Primary casters could protect themselves with spell, Fighters couldn't. By the way, Fighters don't have great saves. They need the primary casters' support to survive, while primary casters have little need of them: I found that a well placed Summon Monster most of the times could replace a Fighter all too well.

It's sad: and I'm not speaking because I'm a huge fan of casters, but because I love melee warriors. I played them a lot, from Fighters to Paladins. And a lot of times I found that they lack in choices: yes, the casters could make bad choices, but at least they have that chance. As a Fighter, most of the times, I'm stuck with the few tricks I have and nothing more. I feel like I'm just a warm body in the battlefield, which is really annoying.

And I never played in a high-optimization group.


Oh and what'd you think of this?
"I've heard some people complain that playing a spell casting Polar bear at certain levels is broke and ruins the game balance.
The thing they fail to consider though? Just how many Spellcasting Flying Polar bears they are going to have to fight in the life of a pc.." -Midnight_v

Sorry, but I'm unsure on what you're trying to say with that. Could you explain, please?

[Leon]

That's the whole problem! The fighters job is "hit stuff", which would be fair enough in a balanced game. The problem, however, is that the clerics job is "heal the wounded, weaken the enemy, buff the party and hit stuff (preferably harder than a fighter on steroids could ever hope to do)". If you look at it like that, even an effective fighter is kind of redundant. In your average "fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard" party, the cleric and wizard could easily take over the roles of fighter and rogue (especially if the cleric is a cloistered cleric with the trickery domain (for sneaky stuff) and dragon domain (for diplomancy)). Actually, a "wizard-cleric-druid-donkey that carries their phat loot" would be better than the 'standard' party.

Even if we limit ourselves to just "making sure the bad guy dies", the fighter is outshined by all three Core big boys. Let's imagine a very common scenario: the big bad can fly, what does the fighter do? He switches to a bow, but unless he's completely specialized to fight specifically with a bow, he'll suck. On the other hand, a wizard uses overland flight and uses a few blasty spells (I know, unoptimized) to fry the big bad to a crisp. The druid changes into a strong animal that can fly and summons more strong, flying animals. The cleric uses animal devotion or air walk, casually strolls up to the big bad with a big smirk on his face due to how he can simply defy gravity because his god loves him so much, and slaps the big bad in the face with his 1d6+OMGWTFBBQ damage. Even if we assume that the fighter is purely specialised in archery, a zen archery cleric will more often than not be better (because his archery skills are keyed off his primary casting stat, making sure it's pretty much the only stat he'll ever need) and he still has some spells to back him up if archery proves to be sub-optimal in a given situation.

Another problem a fighter can encounter in his "hit stuff" task is insanely high AC and/or damage reduction. To overcome this obstacle a fighter needs really good rolls and/or magic weapons and/or good armor + hp to make sure he can outlive the big bad in this test of endurance (pro-tip: if the big bad has such a high AC and/or DR and a decent damage output, this isn't going to happen anytime soon). The big three however get to choose between:
a) summoning something that can overcome their DR and/or AC, or even to just act as a meat shield.
b) blasting spells that bypass AC and/or DR
c) weakening his defenses, then smash his face in with a good ol' mace
d) using other means to take care of him (forcecage + cloudkill, hold person + coup de grace and I'm sure there are other ways to take care of it. Ask one of the Cleric- or Wizard-freaks on this board).

Now that that's out of the way, we should know that flexibility is the name of the game. Imagine a situation where hitting stuff in the face isn't the best course of action, for example when you need to convince a heavily guarded baron to finance your cause. The fighter will just sit in a corner while he sulks over how he's useless. The big three, however, can use spells to improve their diplomatic prowess, and the druid and cleric even have diplomacy as class skills! If you take a cloistered cleric with the dragon domain he also gets bluff and intimidate as class skills and the spells "voice of the dragon" to boot, which gives him a +10 to diplomacy, bluff and intimidate. A bard with glibness is probably the only thing that can out-diplomance said cloistered cleric.

Now, what if said baron will somehow refuse to budge and joins the Big Bad's side instead? One way to take care of this (dependant on your alignment) is to assassinate him. A fighter can't do this unless he has some magic items/potions especially for this job or a rogue that's willing to drag him along through a portable hole or something like that. The wizard, however, can use the invisibility spells combined with fly to be unseen and unheard, the druid just changes into an unsuspicious animal (a cat, mouse, owl or what have you) and the cleric has a spell called ghost touch which reduces the AC penalty from his heavy armor. I'm not too familliar with other spells on the cleric list that deal with this problem, but I know that a (cloistered) cleric with the trickery domain gets a lot of stealth skills as class skills.

This demonstrates that even a fighter who's very good at his job gets out-classed by the big three in what's supposed to be his only purpose, and he's useless unless the situation specifically demands that you crack some skulls. Of course, the best retort would be "the fighter isn't supposed to be a solo player, he has party members that can give him the buffs required". This is a very good retort, but let's think about it this way: what would make the wizard more effective, a fighter that needs half of his spells, or a cleric that can provide himself with all the spells he needs and have some to spare for his wizard buddy?

Once more you are blind apparently to a party working as a group - the bad guy is flying so cast fly on the Fighter and he can come up and join the battle.

Diplomacy - well that is what happens when you you rely solely on a skill and its numbers, never played like that with any of the groups i have joined or run over time - if you You cant say what you want to say diplomatically then having a +100 to the skill is not going to change anything.
Diplomacy is not mind control you may well get the target up to being helpful but if no means no then all you have a a helpful person telling you no you cant do that


I play a Cleric, i know all these silly things you can do with them. I don't buff the wazoo out of my self and wade into combat to dominate as i know that its better to buff the wazoo out of everyone else and make for a better group as a whole than be selfish in a group environment.



Wow. Thats such a falsehood that I don't know if you're being funny or not. Fighters specifically CAN'T do that without excessive optimization. He doesn't hit things hard enough, especially not the things that do the same job as him on team evil.
Unless you know your optimization you really are not going to be able to the things that people think when they think of the archtype.


No, you don't need Optimization - its just that many of you have done so much with it for so long that you forget that its not needed.

The Fighter/Monk/Whatever all work and do so well without it.
Fine its not earth shattering breakable like a full spell caster is but its also not bad and can do its thing just fine but more so with a bit of magical support.

If you are lording it over another player who is not playing a full spell caster for not having what your class can do then you are a bad player.




Nope. Not overstating at all. With spellcasters in the party, you have absolutely no need for frontliners.

Fighter: Need me to stand in front of you while you cast spells so you don't get grokked?

Wizard: Nah. Fly.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to fly in front of you so you don't get grokked by a mook with a bow?

Wizard: Nah. Mirror Image.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to charge the mooks and deal some damage?

Wizard: Fell Drain Magic Missile. Nah. Druid cleaned up the BBEG during the two rounds it took me to cast those spells. I just nailed the group of mooks with that spell I just said out loud.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to go make dinner or something?

Wizard: Nah. Cleric's got that covered, and the Bard is Prestidigitation'ing some flavor into the food. Plus, you don't really have the skills to spare for Craft: Cooking, do you?

Fighter: Oh. Damn.

Frontliners = useless. I'm currently playing a Cleric who is frontlining for a party consisting of a Paladin, a Knight, and a Rogue. I'm not wearing heavy armor. Or any armor, actually. DMM suits me just fine.

The wizard is being a jerk - the fighter would best find a group with better players.

[TroubleBrewing]

Once more you are blind apparently to a party working as a group - the bad guy is flying so cast fly on the Fighter and he can come up and join the battle.

Waste of resources. The Cleric can Air Walk himself, thus spreading the resources out and allowing the Wizard to do something useful, instead of acting as a crutch to a terrible and unnecessary party member.


Diplomacy - well that is what happens when you you rely solely on a skill and its numbers, never played like that with any of the groups i have joined or run over time - if you You cant say what you want to say diplomatically then having a +100 to the skill is not going to change anything.
Diplomacy is not mind control you may well get the target up to being helpful but if no means no then all you have a a helpful person telling you no you cant do that

Not sure what you mean here. Your houserule is not a valid argument.



I play a Cleric, i know all these silly things you can do with them. I don't buff the wazoo out of my self and wade into combat to dominate as i know that its better to buff the wazoo out of everyone else and make for a better group as a whole than be selfish in a group environment.

It isn't selfish if everyone can contribute. The only time it's selfish is when one or more party members have chosen to be useless by comparison, and thus are insisting that the Cleric/Wizard/Whoever spend their resources in order that they might contribute.

I call that "baby bird syndrome".


No, you don't need Optimization - its just that many of you have done so much with it for so long that you forget that its not needed.

Actually, it would appear that you don't need optimization. The rest of the crowd appears to like challenging, interesting, and engaging fights. You are welcome to play the game however you like, but don't tell us what we need or don't.


The Fighter/Monk/Whatever all work and do so well without it.

Your opinion.


If you are lording it over another player who is not playing a full spell caster for not having what your class can do then you are a bad player.

Again, nobody is lording anything over anybody. You seem to be taking offense that we're suggesting that Clerics and Druids simply don't need Fighters. Namecalling is unnecessary.


The wizard is being a jerk - the fighter would best find a group with better players.

The Wizard is being a jerk because he doesn't need the Fighter's help? :smallconfused:

Or is it just that the Fighter is unnecessary, and this bothers you because it doesn't fit with your narrow interpretation of what an "adventuring party" should contain?

[Amphetryon]

1st: Do you run the other skills based on player skill too, or is it just the social skills, out of curiosity? I've seen a few games run to undervalue the character's social skills in favor of the player's - mostly by what I'd consider "old-school" DMs - and it always strikes me as curious that a DM would require the socially adept character to be played by the socially adept player, while not making similar demands on the strength-oriented character's player or the dexterity-oriented character's player.

2nd: Without a certain level of system mastery and/or optimization, you end up either running away, dying, or otherwise not meeting level-appropriate challenges adequately in every campaign I've ever seen. This runs both ways; a DM with good system mastery can arrange matters so that encounters don't curb-stomp the PCs who don't yet have a good grasp on what makes for an effective character in 3.X, just as a player with good system mastery/optimization skills can play a support character in such a way as to make the Half-Elf Monk feel consistently useful in combat. . . provided the DM has a modicum of system mastery, common sense and enough decency not to exploit the myriad weaknesses of a Half-Elf Monk relative to a stronger hit-and-run combat type.

[Tvtyrant]

1st: Do you run the other skills based on player skill too, or is it just the social skills, out of curiosity? I've seen a few games run to undervalue the character's social skills in favor of the player's - mostly by what I'd consider "old-school" DMs - and it always strikes me as curious that a DM would require the socially adept character to be played by the socially adept player, while not making similar demands on the strength-oriented character's player or the dexterity-oriented character's player.



My main issue with this argument is that it implies that both scenarios are equally possible; a DM cannot fly in the air and breath fire on someone, but they can act out the part of the dragon/prince verbally. If it were physically possible to be a D&D classed person, why would we play D&D?

[TroubleBrewing]

My main issue with this argument is that it implies that both scenarios are equally possible; a DM cannot fly in the air and breath fire on someone, but they can act out the part of the dragon/prince verbally. If it were physically possible to be a D&D classed person, why would we play D&D?

I disagree with the notion that only socially savvy players can play social characters. There are rules given for Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive checks to circumvent this kind of thing.

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree with the notion that only socially savvy players can play social characters. There are rules given for Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive checks to circumvent this kind of thing.

And you are free to do so; however it is apples to oranges to compare killing a dragon with talking to a prince. A DM can simulate the latter, not the former.

[TroubleBrewing]

And you are free to do so; however it is apples to oranges to compare killing a dragon with talking to a prince. A DM can simulate the latter, not the former.

That's what I'm saying. :smallconfused:

[Tvtyrant]

That's what I'm saying. :smallconfused:

You disagreed with what I said... To agree with what I said? :smallconfused: My original post was pointing out the folly in the "If your doing skills without checks why not combat?!" not saying that doing skills without checks is a good thing.

[Worira]

Combat - well that is what happens when you you rely solely on an attack and its numbers, never played like that with any of the groups i have joined or run over time - if you You cant drive a sword through an orc's armoured torso then having a +100 to the attack roll is not going to change anything.


This makes as much sense as the original.

EDIT: What is up with these ninjas in my threads yo

[TroubleBrewing]

You disagreed with what I said... To agree with what I said? :smallconfused: My original post was pointing out the folly in the "If your doing skills without checks why not combat?!" not saying that doing skills without checks is a good thing.

I just went back and re-read your post like four times. I'm really sorry; I totally thought we were on opposite sides there. I need to get more sleep. :smallfrown:

[urbanwolf]

How do these Clerics, Druids, and Wizards never run out of spells
if they are doing muti buffs, heals, debuffs damage spells, would they not run out after like one or two encounters

The one thing the fighter has is that he never runs out of hitting things

do you go to bed after every fight
do the NPC's let you

what ever happened to reasorce managment?

[olentu]

How do these Clerics, Druids, and Wizards never run out of spells
if they are doing muti buffs, heals, debuffs damage spells, would they not run out after like one or two encounters

The one thing the fighter has is that he never runs out of hitting things

do you go to bed after every fight
do the NPC's let you

what ever happened to reasorce managment?

Oh I assume that resource management went out the window when the fighter used up his limited resource and the casters had to keep him alive with their resources.

[Togo]

This is totally contingent on how you define "cheesiest" it sounds like your definition includes any caster whose dedicated to doing anything but evocation.
An all caster party works better than a balanced party if the the All caster party is balanced. I could show you how they work better in every way if you like.
[/SPOILER]

That might help. A link would be fine, since presumably it's been done already. The only examples I've seen show the casters breaking down into a number of specialist roles, some of would be better done by a non-caster. Maybe I've not seen a strong enough example.

I tried an all caster party, and by the end of the 5th fight they were leaning pretty heavily on the druid's animal companion and summoned speed bumps, and by the end of the 8th fight, they were running out of steam. Of course we'd banned persist and DMM. The all-casters did ok, they managed just fine, they just weren't as flexible as the balanced party.

You mention Gish, which gives me pause. If your casters include Gish, then you're not doing without front-liners, you're just giving them some casting levels. Which is fine, but means you need to give the same flexibility to the front-liner builds too.

I just use the term front-liner to avoid using fighter - a particular character class that has it's own problems - or meleeist, which gives a false impression of what a good front liner should be able to achieve.

[Togo]

This absolutely is not true. I challenge you to build a "balanced" first level party that "works better" than a first level party of all spellcasters will. If it works at first level, it works at every level, because spellcasters scale quadratically.

? That doesn't follow.

I have played and DMed all caster parties, and played and DMed balanced parties. I don't agree that the former work better. Maybe it's because we don't use persist spell, or DMM?



Fighter: Need me to stand in front of you while you cast spells so you don't get grokked?

Wizard: Nah. Fly.

You're using a 3rd level spell slot at the start of every fight? And relying on winning initiative?


Fighter: Oh. Need me to fly in front of you so you don't get grokked by a mook with a bow?

Wizard: Nah. Mirror Image.

You're using a 2nd level slot at the start of every fight? And relying on winning initiative. For a spell that might keep you safe for maybe two rounds?


Fighter: Oh. Need me to charge the mooks and deal some damage?

Wizard: Fell Drain Magic Missile. Nah. Druid cleaned up the BBEG during the two rounds it took me to cast those spells. I just nailed the group of mooks with that spell I just said out loud.

Really? Because I'm looking a druid with an AC so sucky it's going to take forever and a day to heal him, and a group of mooks each of whom have taken token damage and have 1 neg level each. Which at a level at which you can cast multiple 3rd level spells at every encounter is going to do the square root of sod all.

Oh well, let's go on to the next fight.

Wizard: I can't, we have to rest now.

Fighter: already?

Wizard: Sure. I've spent all my spell slots trying to cover every possible contingency. After 2-3 encounters, I'm just not sure if I can contribute to the next fight or not.

fighter: Hang on... You don't sound like a terrbily viable character in all.. Are... are you... are you just a theoretical build?

I'm probably laying it on a bit thick. I've seen all caster parties work. But they do have problems, and in my experience balanced works better.

[Togo]

Oh I assume that resource management went out the window when the fighter used up his limited resource and the casters had to keep him alive with their resources.

What resources has the fighter used up?

[SITB]

What resources has the fighter used up?

HP. Remember? He tanks attacks by blocking hits with his face. Also, all the other consumbles to let him be up to par (flight, true seeing, limited teleportation etc).

[LordBlades]

What resources has the fighter used up?

HP. Standing in front getting hit involves losing HP.

[Engine]

That doesn't follow. I have played and DMed all caster parties, and played and DMed balanced parties. I don't agree that the former work better. Maybe it's because we don't use persist spell, or DMM?

A lot of times I've played without DMM, and I found that spellcasters work better. I found they work better even just in Core.


You're using a 3rd level spell slot at the start of every fight? And relying on winning initiative?

Every character relies on winning the Initiative. Even the Fighter.


Fighter: Hang on... You don't sound like a terrbily viable character in all.. Are... are you... are you just a theoretical build?

We have a Witch, a Cleric and a Wizard: none is a theoretical characters, and we do just fine. Because an encounter heavy on party's resources is heavy on Fighter's resources, too. To me, it seems that is your Fighter the theoretical character: a Fighter who can go on on fighting all day without running out of HP just like spellcasters run out of spell slots, who can effectively tank the enemies thus protecting the other party members without a single mechanic that let him do that (houserules don't count).

I love the concept of the Fighter; I hate the Fighter class.

[Togo]

HP. Standing in front getting hit involves losing HP.

Does it involve losing hp any faster than they are lost anyway? .

Taking a step back, I'd suggest that any discussion of what's better or worse can only be contingent on a single style of play. I played in one 1st ed campaign where manipulation of wealth made other character traits irrelevent.


I love the concept of the Fighter; I hate the Fighter class.

I don't particularly like it. As a pure class it doesn't really do what it's supposed to, I generally go for a mix of base classes and then go for a prestige class, just as I do when playing a caster.

[Amphetryon]

My main issue with this argument is that it implies that both scenarios are equally possible; a DM cannot fly in the air and breath fire on someone, but they can act out the part of the dragon/prince verbally. If it were physically possible to be a D&D classed person, why would we play D&D?

I would tend to agree.

[tiercel]

If this is going to devolve into a "beatsticks suck compared to full casters" discussion, it does bear mentioning that there is some level dependence; most campaigns I've played in start at low level, even level 1.

Full casters' OMG I WINZ0R FOREVER status doesn't just start instantly; they can't self-buff every defense they could want at will at low-to-mid levels. Heck, druids stand out from other full casters at level 1 just because of the animal companion.

I'm not pretending that non-casters don't fall further and further behind, but it does take some time before casters are polymorphed flying invisible mirror imaged displaced wind walled for four encounters a day while having plenty of spell slots left over for dealing T0T4L PWNAGE. (And even then, if a DM always is giving an arbitrary number of rounds of prep time before every fight, he's just further favoring the Already Almighty Casters.)

And you don't have to resort to Oberoni to simply NOT interpret every possible rule in the most favorable way for casters (e.g. if RAW doesn't explicitly say how feats for advancing animal companions get chosen, it doesn't mean the DM has to allow the player to weasel in, say, Martial Stance and Vow of Poverty).

[Engine]

I'm not pretending that non-casters don't fall further and further behind, but it does take some time before casters are polymorphed flying invisible mirror imaged displaced wind walled for four encounters a day while having plenty of spell slots left over for dealing T0T4L PWNAGE. (And even then, if a DM always is giving an arbitrary number of rounds of prep time before every fight, he's just further favoring the Already Almighty Casters.)

You know what?
I never played a caster that way: mostly because I never played a high level caster. But it doens't matters: low level monsters doesn't need that level of protection. At first level you could have few spell slots, but a single Entangle or Sleep do the job.


And you don't have to resort to Oberoni to simply NOT interpret every possible rule in the most favorable way for casters (e.g. if RAW doesn't explicitly say how feats for advancing animal companions get chosen, it doesn't mean the DM has to allow the player to weasel in, say, Martial Stance and Vow of Poverty).

Yeah, but you know another thing?
I had a lot of DMs. 3\4 of them were totally ok with almost everything casters did, but they were picky with feats for martial characters. Not mentioning that they outright banned ToB.
I even had a DM who thought that more Smite Evil per day were overpowered and I really should use the 3.0 version of the Paladin.

Casters are good, really good. I have no problem with that. But a lot of people doesn't acknowledge that.

[Kaeso]

Once more you are blind apparently to a party working as a group - the bad guy is flying so cast fly on the Fighter and he can come up and join the battle.

Au contraire, I'm aware of the fact that a party, working as a group, has to make sure they expend the least ammount of resources to make sure they can survive. To fight a BBEG that can cast fly, a fighter demands that the wizard casts fly on him, accompanied by some other buffs, just to make the fighter halfway decent. Meanwhile, a cleric provides his own means of flight (eighter through animal devotion or air walk) which saves the wizard one spell slot which he can use to prepare a more efficient spell, perhaps another buff for the cleric or a nice lockdown spell. Hp is another very valuable resource, and a cleric provides a means to recover said resource, unlike the fighter. While I understand your sentiments about the 'classic' adventuring group, it's a sad fact that WotC proved incompetent when it comes to making a game balanced. I would fully agree with you if CoDzilla wasn't a better fighter than the fighter himself.

It's a sad fact that the fighter is only moderately useful in combat, and completely useless outside of combat (which is one of the reasons I'm fond of ToB. Warblades, like the real knights of old, are skilled in diplomacy, while they also provide a more detailled and effective combat system. No longer is combat about mindlessly bashing your opponents face in, but assuming a certain stance and using a variety of strikes of multiple disciplines).

Also, I'd like to say this to your 'rule' that disregards social skills. First of all, imagine that you're playing a game of DnD with a shy, timid boy that dreams of being the cool, charming guy with a silver tongue that everybody likes. Are you going to rob him of his fun, purely because he's not a great orator in real life? The player and PC are two different entities, the players (lack of) social skills shoud not be projected onto his PC (unless he lets his PC do really stupid things like running around naked through the King's palace and smacking the Queen on her perfectly formed backside..... however, with a high enough diplomacy roll :smallamused:). Second of all, your houserule makes a whole set of skills perfectly useless, robbing classes like the bard of one of their greatest assets. Investing in a seemingly good skill like bluff becomes a trap. Finally, if you don't allow social skills in your games, do you allow social spells such as charm person, dominate etc.? If you do, you're actually making non-casters even more redundant than they already are.

If this is going to devolve into a "beatsticks suck compared to full casters" discussion, it does bear mentioning that there is some level dependence; most campaigns I've played in start at low level, even level 1.

Full casters' OMG I WINZ0R FOREVER status doesn't just start instantly; they can't self-buff every defense they could want at will at low-to-mid levels. Heck, druids stand out from other full casters at level 1 just because of the animal companion.

You make a good point, but I believe this only applies to the wizard. Sure, he can cast a devestating spell or two, but after that it's just plinking around with your crossbow and hoping the beatsticks can keep you out of danger.

The druid however has, as you just stated, his animal companion that's roughly equal to a fighter. He can also wear hide armor, use a falchion and has moderate BAB. At level one, this means the difference between his attack roll and that of a fighter is marginal (before calculating STR scores). Let's not forget that even at level 1 the druid has a handful of potent spells, which can still be exchanged for summons. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a summoned meatshield can be a lifesaver.

The cleric is almost the same story: he has the ability to wear full plate from the very start (unless it's a cloistered cleric), moderate BAB, proficiency with all simple weapons (and proficiency + weapon focus in a single martial weapon with the war domain) and a cleric also has a handfull of potent spells at level 1, which can be exchanged for cure spells. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a well timed cure light wounds spell can mean the difference between a glorious victory or bitter defeat.

So in conclusion, at level 1 fighter vs CoDzilla means good meatshield vs decent meatshield that can also cast spells to summon and/or cure wounds. The only one who's disproportionally disadvantaged at those levels is the wizard.


Really? Because I'm looking a druid with an AC so sucky it's going to take forever and a day to heal him, and a group of mooks each of whom have taken token damage and have 1 neg level each. Which at a level at which you can cast multiple 3rd level spells at every encounter is going to do the square root of sod all.

Oh well, let's go on to the next fight.

Wizard: I can't, we have to rest now.

Fighter: already?

Wizard: Sure. I've spent all my spell slots trying to cover every possible contingency. After 2-3 encounters, I'm just not sure if I can contribute to the next fight or not.

fighter: Hang on... You don't sound like a terrbily viable character in all.. Are... are you... are you just a theoretical build?

I'm probably laying it on a bit thick. I've seen all caster parties work. But they do have problems, and in my experience balanced works better.

You make a good point, but it does make one wonder how many hit points a fighter has left after 2-3 encounters, and if he can survive a fourth encounter without the support of casters. Let's also not forget that a spell-less cleric (even without DMM: persist shenenigans) and druid (even without wildshape) are still halfway decent combatants. Maybe not as good as a fighter, but still decent enough.

Nope. Not overstating at all. With spellcasters in the party, you have absolutely no need for frontliners.

Fighter: Need me to stand in front of you while you cast spells so you don't get grokked?

Wizard: Nah. Fly.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to fly in front of you so you don't get grokked by a mook with a bow?

Wizard: Nah. Mirror Image.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to charge the mooks and deal some damage?

Wizard: Fell Drain Magic Missile. Nah. Druid cleaned up the BBEG during the two rounds it took me to cast those spells. I just nailed the group of mooks with that spell I just said out loud.

Fighter: Oh. Need me to go make dinner or something?

Wizard: Nah. Cleric's got that covered, and the Bard is Prestidigitation'ing some flavor into the food. Plus, you don't really have the skills to spare for Craft: Cooking, do you?

Fighter: Oh. Damn.

Frontliners = useless. I'm currently playing a Cleric who is frontlining for a party consisting of a Paladin, a Knight, and a Rogue. I'm not wearing heavy armor. Or any armor, actually. DMM suits me just fine.

You're being too harsh on the fighter, he can still be useful.
He can carry the party's phat lewt :smallbiggrin:

[Fox Box Socks]

The wizard is being a jerk - the fighter would best find a group with better players.
So, you're admitting that the wizard outclasses the fighter, and the only thing that prevents him from doing so is the social contract. Gotcha.

[Togo]

Au contraire, I'm aware of the fact that a party, working as a group, has to make sure they expend the least ammount of resources to make sure they can survive. To fight a BBEG that can cast fly, a fighter demands that the wizard casts fly on him, accompanied by some other buffs, just to make the fighter halfway decent.

Hm.. You're appealing to emotion with the demands, but it doesn't wash. Whomever ends up flying is the recipient of the same spell. The problem is not that a fighter needs fly, whoever flies up needs fly. The problem is merely that fly is not something the fighter provides.

So the problem is that the fighter doesn't get fly spells, unless he gets potions or an item. Is there some pressing reason why everyone has to bring their own?


I would fully agree with you if CoDzilla wasn't a better fighter than the fighter himself.

I don't think he is. He's better on occasion, but in the long run he's inferior.


It's a sad fact that the fighter is only moderately useful in combat, and completely useless outside of combat (which is one of the reasons I'm fond of ToB. Warblades, like the real knights of old, are skilled in diplomacy, while they also provide a more detailled and effective combat system. No longer is combat about mindlessly bashing your opponents face in, but assuming a certain stance and using a variety of strikes of multiple disciplines).

It's why I like marhsals, rangers, and generally go for a prestige class. I agree with you that figher is a badly designed class. I just disagree that there is no advantage to having a front-liner in the party.


You make a good point, but I believe this only applies to the wizard. Sure, he can cast a devestating spell or two, but after that it's just plinking around with your crossbow and hoping the beatsticks can keep you out of danger.

The druid however has, as you just stated, his animal companion that's roughly equal to a fighter. He can also wear hide armor, use a falchion and has moderate BAB. At level one, this means the difference between his attack roll and that of a fighter is marginal (before calculating STR scores).

I've played one, and strength makes that difference. Unless you're all using 40 pt buy, or never intending to get above 4th level, strength is likely to be one of your last choices for a druid. Wildshape, and the need for wis and con, makes str a third choice at best.


Let's not forget that even at level 1 the druid has a handful of potent spells, which can still be exchanged for summons. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a summoned meatshield can be a lifesaver.

No, at 1st level, a summoned meatshield is a waste of time. It takes a round to appear, attacks once, maybe gets an attack of opportunity, and then vanishes. I'm all for creative use of summoning, but it doesn't do the meatsheild job.


The cleric is almost the same story: he has the ability to wear full plate from the very start (unless it's a cloistered cleric), moderate BAB, proficiency with all simple weapons (and proficiency + weapon focus in a single martial weapon with the war domain) and a cleric also has a handfull of potent spells at level 1, which can be exchanged for cure spells. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a well timed cure light wounds spell can mean the difference between a glorious victory or bitter defeat.

Sure, but again you have a focus problem. What's his strength? Are you cutting back on wisdom? Charisma? I've seen high strength combat clerics played, and they're an interesting choice. But they end up acting as front-liners, not primary casters, so why not have a front-liner to start with? And why don't people have their own cure light wounds potions or wands, a snip at 50gp?

Earlier on you were saying that a non-caster front-liner demands fly, and implied that he was remiss for not providing his own. Now you're saying that a cleric is a better front-liner because he can cast cure light wounds on other people?


So in conclusion, at level 1 fighter vs CoDzilla means good meatshield vs decent meatshield that can also cast spells to summon and/or cure wounds.

A low level fighter is much better at killing things than a low level cleric. At that level stats make a big difference, and the CoD will generally have either notably lower hp, or notably lower str, or both. A druid will have an animal which works well, but isn't as good as the fighter, and a poor AC that makes him good in combat only if someone else is drawing fire. Cleric spells aren't that great at low level. Druid spells are, but they're highly situational, as is the animal companion itself.

I'm not saying a cleric, or even druid, can't play to a front-line role. Merely that to build the best front-liner, you're typically better off looking at something other than cleric, druid, or wizard. You can do it with cleric, and I've seen it done well, but in my experience the idea that a party of all clerics, druids and wizards enjoys a clear advantage over a balanced party is fiction. Your game may differ.


You make a good point, but it does make one wonder how many hit points a fighter has left after 2-3 encounters, and if he can survive a fourth encounter without the support of casters.

There's a strong split in the game between in combat healing, which is generally the preserve of the cleric, and out of combat healing, which is the preserve of anyone who can trigger a wand. Most front-liners of my aquaintace provide their own wands of lesser vigour or cure light wounds, although some players do point out that damage taken protecting others shouldn't be the responsbility of a single character.

[Engine]

It's why I like marhsals, rangers, and generally go for a prestige class. I agree with you that figher is a badly designed class. I just disagree that there is no advantage to having a front-liner in the party.

Having a frontliner is surely useful: no one can deny that. It's just that Rangers, Fighters, Marshals, Paladins aren't that good in that. Unfortunately casters like Druids and Clerics are better suited to do the job. You could disagree, and I wholly respect your opinion.

But, sadly, my gaming experience (and not just mine) says something different. The best tank I had in a party was a Cleric.

[Dr.Epic]

Clerics:

HD: d8
BAB: average
Armor: Heavy
Spells: full caster

Basically, their spells are on par with wizards and they have a better HD, BAB and can wear any armor they want and not worry about it interfering with spells.

[Eldariel]

You make a good point, but I believe this only applies to the wizard. Sure, he can cast a devestating spell or two, but after that it's just plinking around with your crossbow and hoping the beatsticks can keep you out of danger.

The druid however has, as you just stated, his animal companion that's roughly equal to a fighter. He can also wear hide armor, use a falchion and has moderate BAB. At level one, this means the difference between his attack roll and that of a fighter is marginal (before calculating STR scores). Let's not forget that even at level 1 the druid has a handful of potent spells, which can still be exchanged for summons. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a summoned meatshield can be a lifesaver.

The cleric is almost the same story: he has the ability to wear full plate from the very start (unless it's a cloistered cleric), moderate BAB, proficiency with all simple weapons (and proficiency + weapon focus in a single martial weapon with the war domain) and a cleric also has a handfull of potent spells at level 1, which can be exchanged for cure spells. At level 1, where death lurks around every corner, a well timed cure light wounds spell can mean the difference between a glorious victory or bitter defeat.

So in conclusion, at level 1 fighter vs CoDzilla means good meatshield vs decent meatshield that can also cast spells to summon and/or cure wounds. The only one who's disproportionally disadvantaged at those levels is the wizard.

Wizards get disproportionate offense at level 1 though. Having 4 slots of level 1 spells each of which can potentially destroy multiple opponents with one action is far more powerful than anything any other class gets access to. So yes, they'll only cast one per encounter and then pluck away with a Crossbow but if that one spell did as much as any other character could hope to do with all their actions in the same encounter (sure, enemies can make their saves; but if 3 enemies all make their saves with 25% chances, any comparable warrior would've also missed for 3 rounds straight while the Wizard, having spent only one spell, at least has the option of spending a second spell to finish the job next round instead of being entirely useless for 3 rounds, though at a harsh cost to his daily resources), that's hardly a problem.

They pay for this by lacking in defense (well, unless they happen to have Abrupt Jaunt anyways), but in a couple of levels they'll have enough spellslots to maintain the most fearsome offense in the game while also having few spells dedicated to defense. But yeah, L1 Wizards without Abrupt Jaunt or e.g. Whisper Gnome Hide or mount + Ride-ranks (for Cover) or some such are quite the glass cannons and rely on not being attacked very often to survive (I guess they can pull off ~15 AC or so but their saves and HP will both be unimpressive - then again, this is level 1 for you so everyone's HP is low enough that they can be one-hit so it isn't that big a factor only making it more likely).

It's worth noting that level 1 Wizards can afford a 1st level scroll or two (only 25gp a piece, or half that crafted with their Scribe Scroll once they get any XP) which allows them to artificially extend their daily resources beyond the ~4 slots they normally have, for a bad day. And that throwing an Alchemist's Fire (basically 2d6 damage touch attack) or shooting a Crossbow with 14-16 Dex are both perfectly respectable contributions for your actions on level 1.


The difference in spell power between arcane and divine casters is very notable on level 1; Entangle is Druid's only real amazing level 1 spell (Clerics have none in Core outside Domain slot with e.g. Strength though they have lots of numeric buffs, and single-target debuffs with save) while Wizards have Color Spray, Sleep, Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement & Enlarge Person as big ones. Silent Image is obviously big but as its uses are different, I'm not counting it among those.

EDIT: That said, Druids are of course still stronger on level 1. Having an extra character, superior defenses (Druids have decent HP, massive Will & Fort-saves thanks to SAD and Con+Wis focus + good progressions, massively strong defensive skills [Spot, Listen] and decent AC as the stronger armor hasn't really stepped in to generate the gap that lasts until Wildshape yet) and relevant spells obviously beats only having relevant spells. Though L1, Barbarians also give casters a run for their money; Extra Rage, Whirling Frenzy, reach weapon (on L1, Martial Weapon Proficiencies are actually really strong), go to town. I'm just saying, L1 Wizards are comparatively RPGs, not slouches. They last just long enough to likely bring their A-game to all the big encounters, are capable of slightly extending their daily durability with Scrolls and they have the biggest alpha strike impact on the level against most opponents.

[TroubleBrewing]

Hm.. You're appealing to emotion with the demands, but it doesn't wash. Whomever ends up flying is the recipient of the same spell. The problem is not that a fighter needs fly, whoever flies up needs fly. The problem is merely that fly is not something the fighter provides.

So the Wizard has to cast it twice. That's twice the resources for half the benefit.



So the problem is that the fighter doesn't get fly spells, unless he gets potions or an item. Is there some pressing reason why everyone has to bring their own?

Not really. But wouldn't you rather have a party member who brings something to the table, rather than being a drain on limited resources? You were the first to point out that wizards have limited spells per day.




I don't think he is. He's better on occasion, but in the long run he's inferior.

[Citation needed]



It's why I like marhsals, rangers, and generally go for a prestige class. I agree with you that figher is a badly designed class. I just disagree that there is no advantage to having a front-liner in the party.

There are advantages, sure. But the best front-liners are also full spellcasters.



I've played one, and strength makes that difference. Unless you're all using 40 pt buy, or never intending to get above 4th level, strength is likely to be one of your last choices for a druid. Wildshape, and the need for wis and con, makes str a third choice at best.

He's talking about the animal companion, not the Druid.



No, at 1st level, a summoned meatshield is a waste of time. It takes a round to appear, attacks once, maybe gets an attack of opportunity, and then vanishes. I'm all for creative use of summoning, but it doesn't do the meatsheild job.

Sure. At 1st level. After about 3rd, there's no reason for the Fighter to be there, if you have access to summons. At 1-3, you've got an animal companion. (This example being strictly limited to Druids. There are, of course, other options for each caster.)



Sure, but again you have a focus problem. What's his strength? Are you cutting back on wisdom? Charisma? I've seen high strength combat clerics played, and they're an interesting choice. But they end up acting as front-liners, not primary casters, so why not have a front-liner to start with?

Prioritize Wisdom, followed by Cha, followed by Str. You can usually spare a 14 to Str. If the front-liner has an 18 Str, so what? +2 damage is not worth losing out on everything a full-casting frontliner has to offer.



And why don't people have their own cure light wounds potions or wands, a snip at 50gp?

Because Cure Light potions are a waste of GP.




Earlier on you were saying that a non-caster front-liner demands fly, and implied that he was remiss for not providing his own. Now you're saying that a cleric is a better front-liner because he can cast cure light wounds on other people?

Look one step deeper: We're saying that casters are better frontliners because they can cast spells.



A low level fighter is much better at killing things than a low level cleric. At that level stats make a big difference, and the CoD will generally have either notably lower hp, or notably lower str, or both.

There might be a difference, but it won't end up being statistically significant.



A druid will have an animal which works well, but isn't as good as the fighter, and a poor AC that makes him good in combat only if someone else is drawing fire.

Actually, a thread dedicated to this comparison determined the exact opposite result, and they were comparing it as though the Druid was AWOL. A riding dog/wolf animal companion at first level has a higher AC than an equivalent fighter, too.



Cleric spells aren't that great at low level.

But it's better than no spells. Lookin' at you, Fighter Ranger Barbarian Monk Knight every meatshield that isn't a full caster.



Druid spells are, but they're highly situational, as is the animal companion itself.

An animal companion is just a meatshield. So is the Fighter. Why is the animal companion more situational? (The only difference between the two is that one is a class feature, while the other is a class. Guess which one I'd rather have in the party?)



I'm not saying a cleric, or even druid, can't play to a front-line role.

Well, I'm glad we can finally agree on someth- Wait.



Merely that to build the best front-liner, you're typically better off looking at something other than cleric, druid, or wizard. You can do it with cleric, and I've seen it done well, but in my experience the idea that a party of all clerics, druids and wizards enjoys a clear advantage over a balanced party is fiction. Your game may differ.

I'm willing to concede that in your experience, this may be true. I certainly don't mean to sound as though I've been implying that you're playing the game wrong: I'm simply trying to get the point across that a party of full casters is always superior to a party of noncasters. I'm willing to resort to a build-off, but I honestly think that the advantages of a party of Tier 1 characters over a party of mixed tiers should be self-evident.

[dextercorvia]

At levels 1-3, a cleric spends most of his slots keeping the fighter and himself alive. Wouldn't it make sense, to reduce your damage output by 1-2 points per round in order to double your healing capacity? This might also mean that the level 1 Cleric isn't afraid to use just one of his spells for buffing purposes.

I would much rather see a Cleric, Cleric, Druid, Wizard party than a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party. There 3 party members can contribute to healing if need be. That reduces the burden on any one member.

[TheCountAlucard]

At levels 1-3, a cleric spends most of his slots keeping the fighter and himself alive.Do they? :smallconfused: I certainly never did. :smalleek: Especially not during combat. No, at levels 1-3, most of my slots were devoted to low-level buffs, and healing was delegated to wands.

[dextercorvia]

Do they? :smallconfused: I certainly never did. :smalleek: Especially not during combat. No, at levels 1-3, most of my slots were devoted to low-level buffs, and healing was delegated to wands.

Level 3 might be an exaggeration, but until you get reliable healing from items, it isn't much of one. In the campaigns where I have played low level clerics, we were out of touch with society, and unable to purchase anything for levels at a time.

[urbanwolf]

so what would happen if a druid/cleric had to have a spell book

so all zero level spells 3 1st level +1 per point of wisdom bonus and research(prayserch) other spells the could still spotainies cure/summon and cleric would get domain spells free would not bridge the cap between them and non casters but might make the druid a little less easy to gamebreak

and this would be one of those rule zero whatever things someone called on me earlier

[Strife Warzeal]

so what would happen if a druid/cleric had to have a spell book

so all zero level spells 3 1st level +1 per point of wisdom bonus and research(prayserch) other spells the could still spotainies cure/summon and cleric would get domain spells free would not bridge the cap between them and non casters but might make the druid a little less easy to gamebreak

and this would be one of those rule zero whatever things someone called on me earlier

They would be tier 1 casters still? Wizards have just as easy a time breaking the game.

[MrRigger]

so what would happen if a druid/cleric had to have a spell book

so all zero level spells 3 1st level +1 per point of wisdom bonus and research(prayserch) other spells the could still spotainies cure/summon and cleric would get domain spells free would not bridge the cap between them and non casters but might make the druid a little less easy to gamebreak

and this would be one of those rule zero whatever things someone called on me earlier

They've got one of these. It's called the Archivist (Heroes of Horror). And it's still Tier 1. A lot more fun than clerics, in my opinion.

[Leon]

Waste of resources. The Cleric can Air Walk himself, thus spreading the resources out and allowing the Wizard to do something useful, instead of acting as a crutch to a terrible and unnecessary party member.


Only terrible to you (and any other stuck in a very narrow minded view)




Not sure what you mean here. Your houserule is not a valid argument.


Its not a argument, but a example of the vagueness that that skill provides and the thought since several classes have a magic boost to it that they can do it better than one that does not.



It isn't selfish if everyone can contribute. The only time it's selfish is when one or more party members have chosen to be useless by comparison, and thus are insisting that the Cleric/Wizard/Whoever spend their resources in order that they might contribute.

I call that "baby bird syndrome".


Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own, with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group). Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.



Actually, it would appear that you don't need optimization. The rest of the crowd appears to like challenging, interesting, and engaging fights. You are welcome to play the game however you like, but don't tell us what we need or don't.


No i don't and neither does anyone, you can choose to use it. It is not needed and you can have challenging, interesting, and engaging fights without it - I'd Tell you the same but you'll not listen and try to twist the words back at me (much like many other posts anything that threatens the dominance of Optimization on this board is grilled and decried)




Your opinion.


yep, and I'm fully justified to have it.



Again, nobody is lording anything over anybody. You seem to be taking offense that we're suggesting that Clerics and Druids simply don't need Fighters. Namecalling is unnecessary.


Do point out explicitly where there is name calling - its a general statement that if you are doing this in a game you are an example of a bad player.




Or is it just that the Fighter is unnecessary, and this bothers you because it doesn't fit with your narrow interpretation of what an "adventuring party" should contain?


I don't have a narrow interpretation of what a adventuring party is - i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.
No class is a necessity.



They've got one of these. It's called the Archivist (Heroes of Horror). And it's still Tier 1. A lot more fun than clerics, in my opinion.

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

[TroubleBrewing]

Its not a argument, but a example of the vagueness that that skill provides and the thought since several classes have a magic boost to it that they can do it better than one that does not.

Emphasis mine.

THEY CAN. :smallannoyed:

Magic trumps everything. Hence the origin of the phrase "A Wizard did it", the implication being that with the incredible variety and power level of spells at his disposal, a properly built Wizard can do anything.



Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own,

What things? Without heavy, heavy optimization, the Fighter can't do anything. WITH heavy optimization, he's limited to being a one trick pony- Mounted, Tripper, and Ubercharging are the usual three.

And those tricks aren't necessary. Anyone can provide damage.



with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group).

Not the argument. The argument is "supporting the Fighter is a waste of resources, since he can't do anything without support". Fighter + support = weaker than Cleric. Cleric + support = So much better.



Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

Yes... Yes it would? Because a potent Cleric is orders of magnitude more useful than the most potent Fighter, therefore it is exactly in the interest of the group as a team. Ever heard the phrase "A team is only as strong as its weakest member"? The Cleric isn't going to be that member, and the Fighter is. Who would you rather have supporting you? :smallconfused:



i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.

Tier 1-2 classes are all you need. If you want to play something else, great. But all you need to get by are full casters. If you WANT something else, well, that's a different discussion.

I personally favor Barbarians over everything else, and they're nowhere near the top. It's an unneeded role, if you have proper Tier 1 support. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.



Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

And in this narrow universe, sure, that's the case. Still doesn't change its Tier.

Mr. Rigger was merely pointing out that a "Cleric with a spellbook" already exists, and it's an enormously entertaining class. (I prefer Clerics, but only because I hate the bookkeeping that having a spellbook entails.)

[LordBlades]

Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own, with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group). Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

A fighter will never be as potent as a well built cleric or druid (mid level and above) even with all the buffs in the world, for a very simple reason: most of the awesome buffs in the game (Divine Power, Righteous Might, Bite of the Werewhatever etc.) are range:personal. So the fighter is not getting them.

In regards to teamwork, D&D is a cooperative game where everybody's supposed to have fun, so not being a jerk is kind of expected. However, if you're bringing a fighter into a let's say cleric, druid, wizard party, you're the one being a jerk because you're bringing something completely inadequate power-wise and expect them to spend their resources to make you not suck.





I don't have a narrow interpretation of what a adventuring party is - i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.
No class is a necessity.

Of course no class is necessary, you can have a nice game with clerics and wizards, and you can have a nice game with fighters and rogues. Just not in the same party, unless clerics and wizards hold back a great deal.

From my own experience, parties work best when there's 1(maybe 2) tiers difference between members. I've played in (and run) pretty fun tier 1-2 games, and I've also played fun tier 3-4 games. Mixing them together however has proven quite bad.

[TheCountAlucard]

Seriously, the argument's a little ridiculous. If you're going to base social challenges off of the player's skill instead of the character's, then what's stopping the Int 3, Cha 1 guy with no ranks in social skills being the party "face," leaving the bard to twiddle his thumbs despite his 18 Charisma and max social skills, AND spells to help him, hm? :smallconfused:

And yeah, anything a non-caster, a caster can do better.

[MrRigger]

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

So what if the DM doesn't automatically give you spells to fill out your prayerbook? Sure, it would be incredibly helpful if they did, but all Archivists get Scribe Scroll at 1st level, and they are explicitly fluffed as seekers of divine knowledge. So it's not a stretch to say your Archivist searches out churches, druid groves, and other divine organizations to see what he can learn from them, resulting in you collaborating with the in house clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and adepts to make scrolls, which you can then use to add to your prayerbook permanently. Is it a roundabout method of doing things? Absolutely. But it means you're opening up plot and quest hooks for the party as a whole, expanding your personal potential, and most importantly, having fun.

And that's without going into trading your unusable arcane loot (either because you have no party member with UMD (though you probably should), or no arcane caster) to the church as direct trade for divine scrolls of the same spells. Church of Boccob is the first place I'd check out if I ran into problems like this (especially since I'd likely be worshiping Boccob since Boccob grants the Knowledge Domain, and even if you don't take it or can't take it, you get the bonus on Lore of the Gods spell (something an Archivist is foolish to do without).

MrRigger

[Coidzor]

Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

Well, there's no accounting for bad taste, now is there?

[Togo]

Emphasis mine.

THEY CAN. :smallannoyed:

Magic trumps everything. Hence the origin of the phrase "A Wizard did it", the implication being that with the incredible variety and power level of spells at his disposal, a properly built Wizard can do anything.

Ok, so we're playing different games here. I'm playing a game where wizards have a limited number of spells slots, a limited number of feats, a limited number of spells and items and feats he has access to, and have to make and stick by choices at the start of the day. You're playing a game where the potency of an individual character is somehow determined by the number of build options open to him at character creation. No wonder we disagree.




What things? Without heavy, heavy optimization, the Fighter can't do anything. WITH heavy optimization, he's limited to being a one trick pony- Mounted, Tripper, and Ubercharging are the usual three.

And those tricks aren't necessary. Anyone can provide damage.

But the front-liners are, mechanically, better at it, and have access to options that make them better still. Buff spells can make a less competant warrior temporarily better in some areas, but the question is then what is the best platform for those buffs? Why choose a spellcaster?

Bear in mind that you're simultaneosuly arguing that 'anyone' can deal out damage, and that fighters can't do anything without optimisation.

Also, ew, if you think those are the only useful options for a front-liner, you're missing a lot.


Not the argument. The argument is "supporting the Fighter is a waste of resources, since he can't do anything without support". Fighter + support = weaker than Cleric. Cleric + support = So much better.

I'm arguing that cleric + front-liner is better than cleric + cleric.


Yes... Yes it would? Because a potent Cleric is orders of magnitude more useful than the most potent Fighter, therefore it is exactly in the interest of the group as a team.

Except that both teams already have a cleric. The question is whether a front-liner is better or worse than cleric number 2.


Tier 1-2 classes are all you need. If you want to play something else, great. But all you need to get by are full casters. If you WANT something else, well, that's a different discussion.

You realise the Tier system is based, not on mechanical advantage, but on flexibility, right?

I'm questioning whether duplicating a flexible class is really better than having two different classes. Presumably you'd agree that at some point, adding more clerics to the party would be less effective than adding a lower tier class?

[LordBlades]

But the front-liners are, mechanically, better at it, and have access to options that make them better still. Buff spells can make a less competant warrior temporarily better in some areas, but the question is then what is the best platform for those buffs? Why choose a spellcaster?


Simple, because a spellcaster with his personal range buffs active offers a superior 'base chassis' on which to apply further buffs to a fighter. Not to mention said spellcaster can provide some of the buffs himself, freeing the spell slots and actions of other party members.

[Engine]

Ok, so we're playing different games here. I'm playing a game where wizards have a limited number of spells slots, a limited number of feats, a limited number of spells and items and feats he has access to, and have to make and stick by choices at the start of the day. You're playing a game where the potency of an individual character is somehow determined by the number of build options open to him at character creation. No wonder we disagree.

As I already said, I wholly respect your opinion. Anyway it seems to me that you have a little prejudice here.
You're right saying that as a Wizard one should make choices at the start of every day. It's true, absolutely true. But you should consider that a Wizard COULD make those choices: a Fighter couldn't. So while a Wizard could pick all the wrong spells for the day, could also pick the right spells (and a lot of spells are just good that they are worthy every day). A Fighter, instead, couldn't make a lot of choices. She has to stick with her build all day, every day.
An example: as a Wizard I couldn't pick the Fly spell and during the day it could happen the party has to fight a flying enemy. A Fighter just can't fly on her own.

And let me say another thing, you say that spells are a limited resource: you're absolutely right. HP are another limited resource, so a Fighter has limits. And spells, as a limited resource, should be used with care. More on this point...



But the front-liners are, mechanically, better at it, and have access to options that make them better still. Buff spells can make a less competant warrior temporarily better in some areas, but the question is then what is the best platform for those buffs? Why choose a spellcaster?

Why choose a spellcaster? Because, most of the times, is the right (mechanically speaking, of course) thing to do. It's sad, really.
Let's say that we have a flying enemy above us: you're a Fighter and I'm a Wizard. I could cast Fly on you, but unless I prepared another Fly I'm stuck on the ground. So we have two characters here, one that could do just one thing (just attack) and one that could do many things (spells prepared for the day). IMHO it's more useful the character who could do more things than just attack.

Frontliners are useful. But a frontliner excessively dependant on others isn't that useful.


I'm questioning whether duplicating a flexible class is really better than having two different classes. Presumably you'd agree that at some point, adding more clerics to the party would be less effective than adding a lower tier class?

Tactical flexibility is the key: two spellcasters, same class, could prepare more spells that could cover more situations. A Fighter could just attack, or maybe trip. She's not tactical flexible, unfortunately.

Anyway I'm not saying that no one should play a Fighter, or a Ranger. I always have at hand buffs for melee-types, Invisibility for the party Rogue and so on. I love teamwork, even If I need to manage more carefully my daily allotment of spells. But, system-wise, they're not needed.

[deuxhero]

Do they? :smallconfused: I certainly never did. :smalleek: Especially not during combat. No, at levels 1-3, most of my slots were devoted to low-level buffs, and healing was delegated to wands.

At level 3 you should be Hold Person something scary looking at minimum/core!



And yeah, anything a non-caster, a caster can do better.

Only if true namers are "casters", as there is no other way for a caster to suck better.

[Kaeso]

Its not a argument, but a example of the vagueness that that skill provides and the thought since several classes have a magic boost to it that they can do it better than one that does not.

Yes, some people are better than speaking in public than others. Yes, the skill can be a bit overpowered but that's no excuse to ban an entire skill subset, making it, and classes that specialize in it, entirely useless. Actually, the entire charisma stat is near useless and the bard loses some of its edge (only some, not all. Yes, having spells is that good). The giant has a very popular diplomacy fix on this very website.

And, yet again, IMHO it's very unrealistic to expect a great speech from somebody who just wants to be the cool, charismatic guy in his escapist fantasy game. Unless (aspiring) lawyers, actors and politicians make up a great part of your gaming group it's most likely not going to happen.


Everyone can Contribute - the fighter is well and able to do things on his own, with support he is extremely potent (and so is the rest of the group). Just having a Potent Cleric would not be of much help to the interest's of the group as a team.

Name one thing a fighter can do on his own with or without support that a cleric or druid can't do with or without the same support.

Since we're on the subject anyway, how is a potent cleric not of use when it's in the same 'party slot' as the fighter? If we have a "Cleric, druid, cloistered cleric, wizard" party (where the cleric fills in for the fighter and the cloistered cleric for the rogue), then the party should be better than the 'standard' party, purely because a cleric with divine power activated is a fighter with spells. He can smash heads, make sure he can reach said heads, use his magic to break any defenses surrounding those heads and provide secondary healing if the other cleric/druid can't handle it anymore (very unlikely, but still). A fighter that can provide his own spells is more useful than a fighter that needs spells to be cast on him, purely because spells are a limited resource. If you can bring more of it to the table, you greatly benefit the party not only because you can cast spells on yourself, but you can also buff your party members if they need it. A fighter is only on the receiving end of buffs. Said buffs also make the cleric less gear-dependant, should your game be hosted by a DM who's stingy with his magic items. A cleric without a magic gear can just cast 'greater magic weapon', 'magic vestment' and a slew of other spells on his own and/or his party's equipment. A fighter is stuck with being reduced to near uselessnes.


No i don't and neither does anyone, you can choose to use it. It is not needed and you can have challenging, interesting, and engaging fights without it - I'd Tell you the same but you'll not listen and try to twist the words back at me (much like many other posts anything that threatens the dominance of Optimization on this board is grilled and decried)


Most of us here believe that epic optimization isn't needed, we are only aware that some classes are more useful than others, and some are simply a waste of the paper they're printed on (CW samurai anyone?). Actually, most people prefer to play around tier 3, where the duskblade and crusader dwell.




I don't have a narrow interpretation of what a adventuring party is - i have a nice broad view that anything can and will work with a adventuring party. Your view that only Wizards and Clerics are needed is the narrow one.
No class is a necessity.

I wouldn't call that view narrow, there's enough proof that druids and clerics are better fighters than the fighter himself. A cleric with divine power alone is a fighter with less feats but more spells, and spells > feats.



Hugely fun up to the point where you discover that the DM has a Thing for Arcane Magic and all the caster loot you find is Arcane related scrolls and books. And when you try and do independent research you are given unrealistic DCs to learn them.

I once played a wizard with a DM who whould on the fly tell me things like "oops, grease doesn't work that way" or "you just cast sleep on those bandits? Well, they wake up". You can't foresee a dishonest/inexperienced/douchy DM and that doesn't change the effectiveness of any class under the normal circumstances.


So if you play one make sure that you can get access to the full array of spell options otherwise its like playing a very limited Cleric

IMHO the wizard is the only one who suffers from that. The Cleric and Wizard have a handful of good spells available even in core only games. The cleric still has access to the divine power spell, which is pivotal in any melee cleric build.

[Worira]

Emphasis mine.

THEY CAN. :smallannoyed:

Magic trumps everything. Hence the origin of the phrase "A Wizard did it", the implication being that with the incredible variety and power level of spells at his disposal, a properly built Wizard can do anything.




Uh... That's not the origin of that phrase at all.



I'm questioning whether duplicating a flexible class is really better than having two different classes. Presumably you'd agree that at some point, adding more clerics to the party would be less effective than adding a lower tier class?

No, I wouldn't agree with that. 4 Clerics is a really, really powerful party. I would generally say that the most powerful party in core is Cleric/Druid/Druid/Wizard, although some might adjust the numbers a bit.


Oh, and to the people talking about wizards having 4 first level spells per day at level 1: What? Not unless they've got 28 Int, they don't. Without a racial modifier, they don't even get 3.

[LordBlades]

Oh, and to the people talking about wizards having 4 first level spells per day at level 1: What? Not unless they've got 28 Int, they don't. Without a racial modifier, they don't even get 3.

Default wizard has 1 base, Elven generalist or specialist wizard has 2 base, any focused specialist has 3 base. Add 1-2 bonus spells from int.

[Worira]

Oh, hurf durf, me am smart. That said, I'd still say that most wizards tend to take specialization but not focused, putting most of them at 3/day.

[LordBlades]

Oh, hurf durf, me am smart. That said, I'd still say that most wizards tend to take specialization but not focused, putting most of them at 3/day.

Our experiences differ. In my group I can't recall the last time I saw a wizard specialize and not go focused specialist. 1 banned school for 1 extra spell slot per level is well worth the trade IMHO.

[Coidzor]

Our experiences differ. In my group I can't recall the last time I saw a wizard specialize and not go focused specialist. 1 banned school for 1 extra spell slot per level is well worth the trade IMHO.

Not when you run out of fat to trim off in exchange for the extra slots.

[LordBlades]

Not when you run out of fat to trim off in exchange for the extra slots.

Of course, if you're planning to be an Enchanter or Necromancer or god-forbit Evoker, focused specialist is somewhat tricky since you'd have to drop a good school. But most Transmuters, Conjurers and Illusionist can do just fine without Evocation, Necromancy and Enchantment.

[Kaeso]

Of course, if you're planning to be an Enchanter or Necromancer or god-forbit Evoker, focused specialist is somewhat tricky since you'd have to drop a good school. But most Transmuters, Conjurers and Illusionist can do just fine without Evocation, Necromancy and Enchantment.

I can understand evocation (as many people have said before me, you only need so many hammers) even though some of its spells can be fun, but I disagree about the others being easily missable. Depending on your campaign, enchantment has the potential to be quite useful and necromancy has some very good debuffs. How often do you hear about good spells like enervation or shivering touch? Even the lowly false life has its uses. Giving up one of those schools already smarts, let alone both for a focused specialist.

[LordBlades]

I can understand evocation (as many people have said before me, you only need so many hammers) even though some of its spells can be fun, but I disagree about the others being easily missable. Depending on your campaign, enchantment has the potential to be quite useful and necromancy has some very good debuffs. How often do you hear about good spells like enervation or shivering touch? Even the lowly false life has its uses. Giving up one of those schools already smarts, let alone both for a focused specialist.

Enchantment is situational(as you have said) due to most of the spells being [mind affecting]. I've played enchanters and they're great fun(especially in campaigns with lots of social interaction), but when I'm not playing one I'd rather fill my spell slots with spells that have a wider applicability. I personally would gladly give up enchantment for the ability to prepare one more conjuration or transmutation spell per day.

Necromancy is a good school if you focus on it, but it contains very few 'must have' spells (that provide effects that you can't duplicate with other means). Also, most non-necromancers don't want to mess with a significant part of the school (the one which deals with animating and controlling undead). Even enervation isn't very good unless you focus your build on it(1d4 negative levels for a standard action isn't that much; stuff like maximized empowered twin repeated split ray enervation is a completely different matter).

[Eldariel]

Oh, hurf durf, me am smart. That said, I'd still say that most wizards tend to take specialization but not focused, putting most of them at 3/day.

20 Int allows for Specialisation or Elf Generalist to get 4/day too, with Focused Specialist going up to 5/day. There's also Spellcasting Prodigy [PGtF] for similar effect on Human, Precocious Apprentice for a level 2 slot instead, etc.

It's not all that hard to only have 3 slots on level 1, unfortunately. I wouldn't play a level 1 Wizard with only 3 level 1 slots, though, since that cuts so significantly into your endurance.

[Midnight_v]

It seems the thread went down a Melee vs caster bent. I guess with the question being asked it was inevitable.


That might help. A link would be fine, since presumably it's been done already.
I don't know of one really and I'm not sure how to illustrate it an a manner that would be pleasing to you aside from making 2 partys and running tests.
I am loathe to do that but if it helps ... I'll do a party and show how all casters are better. The only question is

The only examples I've seen show the casters breaking down into a number of specialist roles, some of would be better done by a non-caster.
Hmm... that is interesting, you suggest that these roles are 1. Done by extreme specialization on be half of the caster.
and
2. Roles done better by a non caster.

Maybe I've not seen a strong enough example.
Okay gimme a list of things that you would consider evidence enough to change your mind and I'll crank em out.
Level?, what point buy, and most of all what would it really take to convince you that this caster system of things works better.
Some people will balk at any evidence and I just wanna let you set the parameters so you might find it wholly satisfying.

[Lord_Gareth]

Hmm... that is interesting, you suggest that these roles are 1. Done by extreme specialization on be half of the caster.

This right here is the biggest flaw with the reasoning that casters can't do everything; people assume that just because they weren't intended to fill certain roles, they can't. Lemme tell ya somethin' folks, a Wizard can light every single feat he has on fire, put all of his skill points in Profession and not take a single PrC level and still have god-like power and versatility. This is not an exaggeration - spells are literally just that good. Does he need to melee? Polymorph or Shapechange. Enemy is protected by an antimagic field? Orb spells, Acid Arrow, or even more environmentally-focused attacks like Obedient Avalanche work just fine. Enemy tries to teleport? Dimensional lock takes care of that. The list goes on and on and on.

What dos a frontliner do against the following tactics that monsters begin using around level eight or so: flight, teleportation, dimension door, etherealness, damage reduction, save-or-suck tactics like hold person, and regeneration? I'll give you a quick hint: nothing. He's literally powerless to fulfill his role when confronted with enemies that use those tactics, and therefore utterly reliant on the spellcaster(s) in the party for protection. At that point, it's simply more cost-efficient to keep a Cleric or Druid around instead, since they can fulfill his role for the cost of a few measly spell slots (or scrolls, or potions, or their Animal Companion, or a feat) while still retaining the power and versatility needed to deal with a wider range of both threats and challenges like offended shopkeepers, rock slides, mile-wide chasms, spellcasting enemies and their mothers-in-law.

[Midnight_v]

This right here is the biggest flaw with the reasoning that casters can't do everything; people assume that just because they weren't intended to fill certain roles, they can't. Lemme tell ya somethin' folks, a Wizard can light every single feat he has on fire, put all of his skill points in Profession and not take a single PrC level and still have god-like power and versatility.
I know that, you know that, and we're right, but ... the burden of being right is proving your right sometimes.
What baffles me is that its not obvious to people that a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Druid team... it nuts.

[Talya]

I know that, you know that, and we're right, but ... the burden of being right is proving your right sometimes.
What baffles me is that its not obvious to people that a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Druid team... it nuts.

Well, to be fair, the wizard doesn't do any of that without a lot of system mastery with regard to utilizing one's spell list.

Cleric is a bit easier, because they're tough buggers to start with.

Druids come pre-optimized, you don't need to work at it to do everyone else's job well.

[sonofzeal]

Druids come pre-optimized, you don't need to work at it to do everyone else's job well.
Wild Elven Druid with a Hawk companion.

Druids are easy to optimize, but aren't pre-optimized. Someone who's thinking in terms of archetypes rather than rules can easily mess themselves up pretty badly.

[Fox Box Socks]

Wild Elven Druid with a Hawk companion.
Not necessary. A Human Druid with Riding Dog is more than capable of tearing a campaign to pieces.

Also, while I understand that people really want the Fighter to be good, 85% of what the Fighter brings to the table is damage. And while that's fine, that's pretty much all he does.

[TroubleBrewing]

Also, while I understand that people really want the Fighter to be good, 85% of what the Fighter brings to the table is damage.

What's the other 15%, total suck?

[Eldariel]

What's the other 15%, total suck?

I guess some measure of control in combat maneuvers. *shrug* Every character with high Strength does.

[Big Fau]

What's the other 15%, total suck?

HP and a target.

[TroubleBrewing]

HP and a target.

Valid point.

[Sception]

spellcasters rule the roost in 3e. We all know this. Even those who pretend otherwise know this.

It doesn't necessarily mean you can't have fun playing a fighter, but yeah any of the spellcasters can eclipse you pretty easily, and druids in particular will do it by accident. It's probably best to acknowledge this up front and have everyone just stick to T3ish classes, or at the very least if you're the wizard, maybe think about focusing on buffs and battlefield manipulation, rather then save-or-suck spells or polymorphing into something that lets you do the fighters job better then they do. Honestly, those buff and battlefield control spells are some of the strongest in your inventory, they ignore spell resistance, then don't allow saves, and they let you absolutely dominate encounters while still letting your paladin friend slay the evil dragon with his holy avenger.

3e breaks easy, sometimes even without trying. Playing it kind of requires an accepted social contract that you won't break the game clean open, or stand in the way of your friends having fun, no matter what you're playing.

I play dread necromancers. But even as a T3, sometimes I have to hold myself back. Sure, I can summon my own shadows to make new shadows and then rebuke them to chain control a limitless army of shadows, but you know what, that would ruin almost any game, so I don't do that. Maybe I don't cast "command undead" if the DM foolishly throws in some massive but unintelligent zombie as a challenge. Instead of animating a better skeletal monster melee brute then the fighter, maybe I animate him a cool skeletal steed to ride around instead. Maybe instead of tripping every trap with summoned monsters, and having my flying, invisible familiar scout the dungeon out, negating many of the rogues abilities, maybe I save those summons to provide her a flanking buddy in combat, and use that familiar to deliver a debuff to her target to help her hit it easier.

BBEG's a gargantuan dragon? Sure, I could shivering touch it into a coma with a single spell, summon some allips to drain its wisdom away while its helpless, and magic jar myself into its body to become my very own dragon necromancer, and carry my real body around in an adamant coffin worn about its neck like a dark amulet, but ... but... nah. Screw it. That's too cool. I'd do that anyway, campaign balance be damned.

[Kaeso]

I know that, you know that, and we're right, but ... the burden of being right is proving your right sometimes.
What baffles me is that its not obvious to people that a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Druid team... it nuts.

It will be very difficult, but I guess the perfect way would be to have two parties, the first being Fighter-Rogue-Wizard-Cleric and the second being full tier 1 (I prefer cleric-druid-cloistered cleric-wizard but wizard-cleric-druid-druid is fine too), run through the same campaign: the tarrasque/a dragon/*insert fearsome creature here* has been dwelling in an abandoned mine and terrorising the surrounding villages, kill it. Of course the dungeon is also filled with traps.

After the two parallell camaigns, each individual party member of each party has to be rated according to how much they can contribute to the entire dungeon, and the entire party has to be rated by how well they were able to get through said dungeon.

However, party 1 is limited by a small rule: the wizard and cleric should focus most of their spells (though not all, of course) on making the fighter a better combatant.

Such a playtest would be tedious and I think we already know the result.

[SuperFerret]

I think the real question is "who would have more fun?" and that honestly doesn't matter about which class you choose. D&D's a game, and a cooperative one at that. Sure, from a purely technical and tactical standpoint, casting Fly on the Fighter is a waste of resources, but the Fighter's Player is (hopefully) a friend of the Wizard's Player, and the Wizard's Player is just being a **** in that scenario. (I kinda hope that the Fighter's Player is the Wizard's Player's ride home.)

[Divide by Zero]

I think the real question is "who would have more fun?" and that honestly doesn't matter about which class you choose. D&D's a game, and a cooperative one at that. Sure, from a purely technical and tactical standpoint, casting Fly on the Fighter is a waste of resources, but the Fighter's Player is (hopefully) a friend of the Wizard's Player, and the Wizard's Player is just being a **** in that scenario. (I kinda hope that the Fighter's Player is the Wizard's Player's ride home.)

But the fighter player is also partially to blame for choosing a class that doesn't contribute its own resources, because what if the wizard player doesn't want to be a buffbot? Like you said, everyone should be having fun.

[TroubleBrewing]

. Sure, from a purely technical and tactical standpoint, casting Fly on the Fighter is a waste of resources,

Yup. No question about that.



but the Fighter's Player is (hopefully) a friend of the Wizard's Player, and the Wizard's Player is just being a **** in that scenario.

So in order for the "but the Wizard can buff the Fighter" scenario to be viable, we have to resort to out-of-game information?

I think this pretty much settles it.


But the fighter player is also partially to blame for choosing a class that doesn't contribute its own resources, because what if the wizard player doesn't want to be a buffbot? Like you said, everyone should be having fun.

This goes for Clerics who don't want to be the Fighter's first-aid kit, as well.

[sonofzeal]

Not necessary. A Human Druid with Riding Dog is more than capable of tearing a campaign to pieces.
That's exactly my point.

A Wild Elf sounds like exactly the sort of race that Druids would naturally belong to, but with a Con penalty they're going to be very fragile on the front lines in Wildshape form, since animals tend to have horrid AC for their level without magic item support, and a newbie might not know the ways around that. And a Hawk Animal Companion is going to be nigh-useless in combat at any level. So with Wildshape nerfed and the Animal Companion not a significant balance factor any more, "pre-optimized" seems entirely inappropriate. But that's the sort of Druid build a naive player could make, and one I've seen multiple times.

[Talya]

That's exactly my point.

A Wild Elf sounds like exactly the sort of race that Druids would naturally belong to, but with a Con penalty they're going to be very fragile on the front lines in Wildshape form, since animals tend to have horrid AC for their level without magic item support, and a newbie might not know the ways around that. And a Hawk Animal Companion is going to be nigh-useless in combat at any level. So with Wildshape nerfed and the Animal Companion not a significant balance factor any more, "pre-optimized" seems entirely inappropriate. But that's the sort of Druid build a naive player could make, and one I've seen multiple times.

It is possible to make poor choices with your druid that render them less powerful. You need to mess up a lot of stuff, though. In theory, you could do the same with any class, even TOB. Pick the wrong ability scores, poor weapon/armor choices, etc. We're assuming at least a quantum of ability to understand the system.

[Eldariel]

That's exactly my point.

A Wild Elf sounds like exactly the sort of race that Druids would naturally belong to, but with a Con penalty they're going to be very fragile on the front lines in Wildshape form, since animals tend to have horrid AC for their level without magic item support, and a newbie might not know the ways around that. And a Hawk Animal Companion is going to be nigh-useless in combat at any level. So with Wildshape nerfed and the Animal Companion not a significant balance factor any more, "pre-optimized" seems entirely inappropriate. But that's the sort of Druid build a naive player could make, and one I've seen multiple times.

You managed to pick the one Elf-variety without Con-penalty. Wild Elves perform adequately as Druids; +2 Dex, -2 Int.

[TroubleBrewing]

You managed to pick the one Elf-variety without Con-penalty. Wild Elves perform adequately as Druids; +2 Dex, -2 Int.

That's like winning the not-lottery.

[Worira]

The nottery?

[Engine]

I think the real question is "who would have more fun?" and that honestly doesn't matter about which class you choose. D&D's a game, and a cooperative one at that. Sure, from a purely technical and tactical standpoint, casting Fly on the Fighter is a waste of resources, but the Fighter's Player is (hopefully) a friend of the Wizard's Player, and the Wizard's Player is just being a **** in that scenario. (I kinda hope that the Fighter's Player is the Wizard's Player's ride home.)

You're right, as a part of a team the Wizard should be a good (not the alignment, of course) party member. But that's not the point. The point is: a Fighter is not needed in a group.

So when a player comes up with Tome of Battle a DM should not ban that because she says it's overpowered while letting the spellcasters being awesome.

[MrRigger]

That's exactly my point.

A Wild Elf sounds like exactly the sort of race that Druids would naturally belong to, but with a Con penalty they're going to be very fragile on the front lines in Wildshape form, since animals tend to have horrid AC for their level without magic item support, and a newbie might not know the ways around that. And a Hawk Animal Companion is going to be nigh-useless in combat at any level. So with Wildshape nerfed and the Animal Companion not a significant balance factor any more, "pre-optimized" seems entirely inappropriate. But that's the sort of Druid build a naive player could make, and one I've seen multiple times.

Well, as mentioned, Wild Elf is the one subrace without a CON penalty, so that's not as bad as mentioned. And while the Hawk Animal Companion is pretty much worthless for combat, they could be a decent scout for the first few levels. Not to mention that if the Hawk is really that poor of a choice, the player should realize it, and dismiss the Hawk, calling a new type of animal that would be more appropriate for their needs.

And if the race is really that big of a deal breaker, Druids get Reincarnate and Last Breath, allowing you to change your race. Just scribe out a scroll (using the party wizard as the feat provider if you don't want to take Scribe Scroll yourself), and go charge the local Inappropriate Level Encounter.

MrRigger

[Eldariel]

In Core, my favorite party for all levels was:

Druid 20
Druid 20 (or Monk 1/Druid 19)
Wizard 7/Loremaster 8/Archmage 5
Rogue 1/Wizard 5/Assassin 1/Arcane Trickster 10/Loremaster [or Archmage] 2 (could lose one less CL with a Loremaster-base but that would obviously lead to less skill coverage; given skills are the second most broken thing in the game right after spellcasting I'd loathe not to have one character with everything important on that front covered)

Though Red Wizard of Thay is more powerful. Coreish Druid tends to be stronger than Coreish Cleric, though it's true that the party will miss out on some cool buffs for certain junctures because of lacking a Cleric. Could replace one Druid with Cleric 14/Thaumaturgist 5/Hierophant 1, but that would make the low levels weaker. Though for beating up tough combat challenges on level 1, I'd go with 2 Gray Elf Wizards and 2 Orc Barbarians (Unlikely Team™).

[TroubleBrewing]

And if you really want those Cleric buffs, have one (or all, if you REALLY WANT THOSE BUFFS) of the party members pick up Leadership for a Cleric cohort. :smalltongue:

[Togo]

Name one thing a fighter can do on his own with or without support that a cleric or druid can't do with or without the same support.

Go into classes and p-classes that don't advance spellcasting.
Fight as well all day, rather than just a few times per day.


Since we're on the subject anyway, how is a potent cleric not of use when it's in the same 'party slot' as the fighter? If we have a "Cleric, druid, cloistered cleric, wizard" party (where the cleric fills in for the fighter and the cloistered cleric for the rogue), then the party should be better than the 'standard' party, purely because a cleric with divine power activated is a fighter with spells.

No, he isn't. He has the same BAB, worse stats, worse feats. And how long does divine power last?

I'm fond of playing combat clerics. They're very good. I'd rather have a cleric and a fighter than two clerics.

[TroubleBrewing]

Go into classes and p-classes that don't advance spellcasting.

Clever, but not the issue.



Fight as well all day, rather than just a few times per day.

The Cleric doesn't have to go nova in order to be better than the Fighter. The Cleric can do the same thing as a Fighter, if he has to.



No, he isn't. He has the same BAB, worse stats, worse feats. And how long does divine power last?

While he might have slightly fewer feats, he has better stats due to buffs, and Divine Power lasts 24 hours. DMM is the Cleric's best friend.



I'm fond of playing combat clerics. They're very good. I'd rather have a cleric and a fighter than two clerics.

This just doesn't add up. A Cleric is, in literally every measurable way, superior to a Fighter. Why would you rather have something that is totally inferior?

[Engine]

Fight as well all day, rather than just a few times per day.

Nope, sorry.
A Fighter could fight few times a day like the Cleric. Why?

She has the HP resource: fight too many times a day, and you run out of HP.

[Togo]

Simple, because a spellcaster with his personal range buffs active offers a superior 'base chassis' on which to apply further buffs to a fighter. Not to mention said spellcaster can provide some of the buffs himself, freeing the spell slots and actions of other party members.

What are these personal buffs, and how are they lasting all day? I'm happy with the idea that spellcasters are better on occasion, as already stated.



As I already said, I wholly respect your opinion. Anyway it seems to me that you have a little prejudice here.

Those two statements contradict eachother... :smallwink:


You're right saying that as a Wizard one should make choices at the start of every day. It's true, absolutely true. But you should consider that a Wizard COULD make those choices: a Fighter couldn't. So while a Wizard could pick all the wrong spells for the day, could also pick the right spells (and a lot of spells are just good that they are worthy every day). A Fighter, instead, couldn't make a lot of choices. She has to stick with her build all day, every day.
An example: as a Wizard I couldn't pick the Fly spell and during the day it could happen the party has to fight a flying enemy. A Fighter just can't fly on her own.

Not without an item, or an appropriate prestige class. I suspect fly is a poor example, because in most cases the party is better off staying on the ground and using ranged attacks.


And let me say another thing, you say that spells are a limited resource: you're absolutely right. HP are another limited resource, so a Fighter has limits.

HP aren't a limit for the the fighter though. They're a limit for the party. The fighter is getting hit rather than other party members. In most cases he's harder to hit, has more hp reducing the need for vastly expensive in-combat healing, and may have DR.


Let's say that we have a flying enemy above us: you're a Fighter and I'm a Wizard. I could cast Fly on you, but unless I prepared another Fly I'm stuck on the ground. So we have two characters here, one that could do just one thing (just attack) and one that could do many things (spells prepared for the day). IMHO it's more useful the character who could do more things than just attack.

I'm not sure I understand. The fighter could attack, foul up the attack run of the creature, trip it and bring it down to earth, grapple it and cause it to lose flight capability, use an item, or just shoot it. Most of those don't involve flying.

The wizard can cast spells at it. For almost all of them, he doesn't need to fly either.


Frontliners are useful. But a frontliner excessively dependant on others isn't that useful.

If you feel like that, play one who doesn't rely excessively on others. But I'd suggest that a party that trades off capabilities is more effective than one that resents every exchange as being some kind of personal failure.


Tactical flexibility is the key: two spellcasters, same class, could prepare more spells that could cover more situations. A Fighter could just attack, or maybe trip. She's not tactical flexible, unfortunately.

She's better than a character that's just acting as a set of spare spell slots and actions for an arcane capability that the party already has.


Name one thing a fighter can do on his own with or without support that a cleric or druid can't do with or without the same support.

Go into classes and p-classes that don't advance spellcasting.
Fight as well all day, rather than just a few times per day.


Since we're on the subject anyway, how is a potent cleric not of use when it's in the same 'party slot' as the fighter? If we have a "Cleric, druid, cloistered cleric, wizard" party (where the cleric fills in for the fighter and the cloistered cleric for the rogue), then the party should be better than the 'standard' party, purely because a cleric with divine power activated is a fighter with spells.

No, he isn't. He has the same BAB, worse stats, worse feats. And how long does divine power last?

I'm fond of playing combat clerics. They're very good. I'd rather have a cleric and a fighter than two clerics.


Okay gimme a list of things that you would consider evidence enough to change your mind and I'll crank em out.
Level?, what point buy, and most of all what would it really take to convince you that this caster system of things works better.
Some people will balk at any evidence and I just wanna let you set the parameters so you might find it wholly satisfying.

Just an example of a caster that would do the front-line role better than a front-liner. And by better, I mean all day, not just for a fight or two. 5th level 28pt buy would be fine, and I don't need all the details. Just some indication of what you're thinking. If you can manage with the details that we went into this with, that is no DMM, no persist spell, and no polymorph (wild shape is fine), that would be better, but if you're relying on those, that's ok.

Remember also that you're designing a second whatever for the party. We're assuming the party already has a caster of whatever class you choose.



This is not an exaggeration - spells are literally just that good. Does he need to melee? Polymorph or Shapechange.

They're very good. I had a divine crusader with shapechange, though, so it's hardly limited to full casters.


What dos a frontliner do against the following tactics that monsters begin using around level eight or so: flight,

fly? Shoot?


teleportation, dimension door,

Shoot, charge?


etherealness,

Noone is more likely to have ghost touch weaponry than the frontliner.


damage reduction, and regeneration?

? Change weapons to overcome it? Ignore it as irrelevent? I really don't see the problem here. Surely the cleric or druid has more of a problem here?


save-or-suck tactics like hold person,

The same as everyone else - make save or suffer. If you're held, you personally can't do anything about it, caster or not - unless you're a warblade.


I'll give you a quick hint: nothing.

Ok, you need to play with some more competant people. Seriously.


What baffles me is that its not obvious to people that a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Druid team... it nuts.

Largely from having tried it, I'm afraid. Your game may vary.


Nope, sorry.
A Fighter could fight few times a day like the Cleric. Why?

She has the HP resource: fight too many times a day, and you run out of HP.

So buy a wand of lesser vigour. That's if you insist on the front-liner healing themselves for presenting themselves as a target in place of the rest of the party.

[Engine]

Not without an item, or an appropriate prestige class. I suspect fly is a poor example, because in most cases the party is better off staying on the ground and using ranged attacks.

It's just an example: I just tried to say that you could use your spells on the Fighter, but most of the times is not so useful because the Fighter could do few thing, really few thing.


The fighter is getting hit rather than other party members.

Unfortunately, no. There's no aggro mechanic in D&D. The Fighter simply cannot reliably get targeted.


In most cases he's harder to hit

Again, no. A Cleric is harder to hit. Thanks to what? You're right, spells.


I'm not sure I understand. The fighter could attack, foul up the attack run of the creature, trip it and bring it down to earth, grapple it and cause it to lose flight capability, use an item, or just shoot it. Most of those don't involve flying.

It was an example: what I'm saying is that a Fighter isn't tactical flexible. Yes, she could do what you're saying. But nothing more.


If you feel like that, play one who doesn't rely excessively on others. But I'd suggest that a party that trades off capabilities is more effective than one that resents every exchange as being some kind of personal failure.

Now you're just exaggerating. It's just that I acknowledge that a full caster party is more flexible, more versatile, more efficient than one who includes Fighters. If someone wants to play a Fighter, fine. It's certainly not a failure of anyone: one should just be aware that a Fighter, for the most part, doesn't contribute that much from a mechanical point of view.


So buy a wand of lesser vigour. That's if you insist on the front-liner healing themselves for presenting themselves as a target in place of the rest of the party.

Again, a Fighter to be halfway efficient needs magic.

[Kaeso]

I think the real question is "who would have more fun?" and that honestly doesn't matter about which class you choose.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. If I pick a DnD class, I expect it to be a heroic warrior or skilled spellcaster. If a certain class fails to deliver what it says on the tin (the monk, CW samurai and truenamer are perfect examples) then it'll be a very disappointing experience. I guess that's why most players prefer tiers 3 and 4: they do exactly what they promise without being overpowering. A barbarian is good at smashing skulls, a beguiler is a trickster mage etc.

[Fox Box Socks]

Let's be practical here. The whole "the Fighter can fight all day and the Wizard is really only good for 4-6 encounters" is a point in the Fighter's favor if and only if the Fighter is in a party without casters.

The caster knows not to blow his wad too early, so he parses out his spells across the adventuring day. When he's running low, he announces to his party that he's low on resources (but not out, because he should always be prepared for something), and the party rests. This is how it has worked for literally every party with a caster in it that I have played in in all the time I played 3.5.

[MrRigger]

The Fighter is limited by his HP, which, you're right, can be restored more readily than spells via things like Wands of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. However, the fighter has no way of activating it himself, unless he's blowing his extremely limited skill points on cross-class ranks in Use Magic Device and blowing his point buy to get his Charisma up (normally a dump stat for fighters), and even then he's not likely to reliably hit the DC 20 to activate the wand. So it's more likely that the cleric, druid, or bard is the one activating the wand. Which I see as working out like this:

McFighterson: Wow, that troll really smacked me one. Hit me with that wand a few times, would you, McClericson?

McClericson: Sure, but we need to find a place to camp for the night. I'm low on spells.

McFighterson: But I've got the HP to keep going!

McClericson: Well, then you and McDruidman's Fleshraker can challenge anybody who comes up on the camp tonight, because McDruidman, Oldey McElvenWizard, and I are all getting low on spells. That's the deal. If the party runs out of daily resources, we stop for the day before we're completely dry, just in case the wretched, manipulative force that dictates our lives decides to throw something unexpected at us during the night.

And if you needed more examples that prove a fighter isn't really necessary in a 3.5 game, look at this arc (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=247). Four Dwarven Clerics, covering the party roles without much trouble. Nobody even goes into Divine Metamagic: Persist cheese for all day personal buffs, and one is played so sub-optimally it may cause actual pain in some optimizers. Clerics (and Druids, Archivists, and Wizards) really are just that good.

Now, I'm not saying it isn't fun to play other classes. Some of my most memorable characters weren't that high on the tier scale. I had a lot of fun with my gnome rogue, and I still talk up my goliath warblade at times. But clerics, druids, wizards, archivists, and artificers mean you don't need any other classes.

MrRigger

[Kaeso]

Let's be practical here. The whole "the Fighter can fight all day and the Wizard is really only good for 4-6 encounters" is a point in the Fighter's favor if and only if the Fighter is in a party without casters

:p Not really, without casters there are only non-magical means of healing damage (and potions, but those are pretty expensive). This means a fighter in a non-caster party fights all day, and spends a week recovering.

[Fox Box Socks]

:p Not really, without casters there are only non-magical means of healing damage (and potions, but those are pretty expensive). This means a fighter in a non-caster party fights all day, and spends a week recovering.
True, but not exactly the point I was going for.

See, since D&D is a cooperative game, the party is expected to work together. If there's a Fighter and a Wizard that are bff adventuring buddies, and the Wizard needs to rest after 5 encounters, it doesn't actually matter how long the Fighter can do his thing before he needs to take a break, because he's going to be resting after 5 encounters anyway.

[Starbuck_II]

McFighterson: Wow, that troll really smacked me one. Hit me with that wand a few times, would you, McClericson?

McClericson: Sure, but we need to find a place to camp for the night. I'm low on spells.

McFighterson: But I've got the HP to keep going!

McClericson: Well, then you and McDruidman's Fleshraker can challenge anybody who comes up on the camp tonight, because McDruidman, Oldey McElvenWizard, and I are all getting low on spells. That's the deal. If the party runs out of daily resources, we stop for the day before we're completely dry, just in case the wretched, manipulative force that dictates our lives decides to throw something unexpected at us during the night.
MrRigger

Waiy, why is McClericson sleeping? He can just relax and keep watch and alert McFighterson that it is time to fight (as long as he no casts, his refresh rate is maintained, only Wizards have the must sleep issue).

[Worira]

It doesn't matter whether he casts or not, there's just one particular time each day he needs to spend an hour meditating. It doesn't matter if he's been sleeping or shooting holy fire at orcs until that hour.

[Fox Box Socks]

just shoot it
Only if he feels like being the least useful guy at the table. Fighters who spec for melee damage absolutely blow at ranged combat, and vice versa.

An Ubercharger or whatever up against a flying opponent is about as useful as he would be had he taken levels in Warrior rather than Fighter.

[LordBlades]

What are these personal buffs, and how are they lasting all day? I'm happy with the idea that spellcasters are better on occasion, as already stated.




DMM: Persist Divine Power and Righteous Might(and whatever else you might want to persist for that matter) for Cleric, Wildshape for Druid.

Secondly, you don't need to be fully buffed for the whatever many hours of the day when nothing happens, you need to be fully buffed when the big fights happen. As a caster (as opposed to a fighter) you have more than adequate means to either scout the enemy(various divinations, stealthy familiars, stealth aiding spells on yourself) so you don't get surprised and have time to buff or even surprise the enemy yourself(so you're buffed and he's not)(scry&die tactics, approaching under invisibility and silence etc.).

Third, even if somehow you do get ambushed and caught unprepared by something that you can't handle, at least as a caster you have the means to run away(turn invisible, fly away, burrow, teleport etc.). All the fighter can do is die (running away on foot in heavy armor doesn't really work).

[MrRigger]

Waiy, why is McClericson sleeping? He can just relax and keep watch and alert McFighterson that it is time to fight (as long as he no casts, his refresh rate is maintained, only Wizards have the must sleep issue).

My group always house ruled that all spellcasters, wizard, cleric, whatever, all need to rest. And even if the cleric doesn't need to sleep, he's still too low on spells to want to keep wandering around, waiting to trigger that random encounter table, so making camp isn't a bad idea for him either.

MrRigger

[Midnight_v]

Just an example of a caster that would do the front-line role better than a front-liner. And by better, I mean all day, not just for a fight or two. 5th level 28pt buy would be fine, and I don't need all the details. Just some indication of what you're thinking. If you can manage with the details that we went into this with, that is no DMM, no persist spell, and no polymorph (wild shape is fine), that would be better, but if you're relying on those, that's ok.

Remember also that you're designing a second whatever for the party. We're assuming the party already has a caster of whatever class you choose.
Seems pretty broad. Just before natural spell comes online. All day long... thats a little vague but I'm assuming you mean the daily fights which is 4, or 5 if things are getting nasty.
I find this to be acceptable. Gimme a bit.

[LordBlades]

Just an example of a caster that would do the front-line role better than a front-liner. And by better, I mean all day, not just for a fight or two. 5th level 28pt buy would be fine, and I don't need all the details. Just some indication of what you're thinking. If you can manage with the details that we went into this with, that is no DMM, no persist spell, and no polymorph (wild shape is fine), that would be better, but if you're relying on those, that's ok.


I'll give it a try also if you have nothing against it:

Neraph Focused Specialist Transmuter 5
Stats: Str 16(15+lvl 4 stat increase) Dex 12 Con 14 int 16 wis 8 cha 8
HP: 5d4+10 (24 HP)
Attack:
Feats: Knowledge Devotion, Sudden Extend, Combat Expertise, Imp. Trip
Skills: Concetration +12, Knwoledge (pick 4)+13
Memorized spells: 4/6/5/4: irrelevantx4/Nerveskitterx2, Shieldx2, Magic Weaponx2/Rope Trick, Alter Selfx3, Scintillating Scales/Displacement, Flyx2, Haste
Gear: Rod of Extend, lesser (3000 GP), +1 Mithral Twilight chainshirt (5100 GP), MW Guisarme (300 GP), MW Armor Spikes(300 GP) 5x MW Tools (concetration+knowledges) 50 gp left over for other crap,

With 3 extended castings of alter self into dwarf ancestor, char has a total of 300 minutes(5h, split into 3x 1h40 min intervals) of Alter Self, usually more than enough for an adventuring day, especially given the fact he can pop an extended Rope Trick and recover spells if he happens to run out.

His AC as a Dwarf ancestor is 10(base)-1(size)+1(dex)+18(natural)+5(armor)=33. That's pretty much way outside what monsters designed for a 5th level party can hit, but he can buff it with shield and/or displacement if needed. He can also get a pretty unhittable touch AC with Scintillating Scales when needed.

His offensive potential is one attack at +6 with the Guisarme or armor spikes, but he can usually hit the +2 DC with knowledge devotion for his 4 knwoedlge types. Also, he can cast haste once to give himself +1 attack and a second attack. He also has magic weapon in case of DR/magic.


EDIT: forgot to add MW tools in the gear section and 2 extra feats.

[dextercorvia]

Seems pretty broad. Just before natural spell comes online. All day long... thats a little vague but I'm assuming you mean the daily fights which is 4, or 5 if things are getting nasty.
I find this to be acceptable. Gimme a bit.

It is also before the fighter gets his iterative. The difference between a Cleric and a Fighter here is maybe a couple of points of strength, +2 to attack, and 5-10 HP. Cleric Domain abilities (which we gets since he took DMM off the table) are ~ the same as general feats, so two of them compared to the Fighter's 3 bonus feats I say are roughly equal. Then the cleric get's spells.

[Aquillion]

Go into classes and p-classes that don't advance spellcasting.They can totally do that. It's not generally a good idea, but in fact if you switch at the right time, they'll still be incredibly powerful.


Fight as well all day, rather than just a few times per day.DMM + Persist Spell for the cleric. For the druid, a moderate-level druid can remain in Wild Shape all day, has their animal companion all day, and has some buffs that naturally last all day; with these things, they can easily be more powerful fighters than a fighter.

Additionally, where are you getting the idea that fighters can fight all day? They have limited resources just like casters. It's just that for them, their resources are their HP rather than their spells.

[dextercorvia]

I'll give it a try also if you have nothing against it:

Neraph Focused Specialist Transmuter 5
Stats: Str 16(15+lvl 4 stat increase) Dex 12 Con 14 int 16 wis 8 cha 8
HP: 5d4+10 (24 HP)
Attack:
Feats: Knowledge Devotion, Sudden Extend
Skills: Concetration +12, Knwoledge (pick 4)+13
Memorized spells: 4/6/5/4: irrelevantx4/Nerveskitterx2, Shieldx2, Magic Weaponx2/Rope Trick, Alter Selfx3, Scintillating Scales/Displacement, Flyx2, Haste
Gear: Rod of Extend, lesser (3000 GP), +1 Mithral Twilight chainshirt (5100 GP), MW Guisarme (300 GP), MW Armor Spikes(300 GP) 300 gp left over for other crap,

With 2 extended castings of alter self into dwarf ancestor, char has a total of 300 minutes(5h, split into 3x 1h40 min intervals) of Alter Self, usually more than enough for an adventuring day, especially given the fact he can pop an extended Rope Trick and recover spells if he happens to run out.

His AC as a Dwarf ancestor is 10(base)-1(size)+1(dex)+18(natural)+5(armor)=33. That's pretty much way outside what monsters designed for a 5th level party can hit, but he can buff it with shield and/or displacement if needed. He can also get a pretty unhittable touch AC with Scintillating Scales when needed.

His offensive potential is one attack at +6 with the Guisarme or armor spikes, but he can usually hit the +2 DC with knowledge devotion for his 4 knwoedlge types. Also, he can cast haste once to give himself +1 attack and a second attack. He also has magic weapon in case of DR/magic.

You forgot your two Fighter bonus feats. One at 1st and one a 5th.

[LordBlades]

You forgot your two Fighter bonus feats. One at 1st and one a 5th.

Good point :smallbiggrin: Made the char in a hurry during lunch break. Since I got a reach weapon and I'm large I'm thinking Combat Expertise and Imp. Trip(not too useful in the long run, but I thin they should work decently well on a 5th level build). Stand Still would have been better, but sadly not a fighter bonus feat.

[Fox Box Socks]

The fact that the challenge is for a level 5 character seems to be an admission that other classes are better, imo, as it's the highest possible level before Natural Spell goes fully online.

[TroubleBrewing]

The fact that the challenge is for a level 5 character seems to be an admission that other classes are better, imo, as it's the highest possible level before Natural Spell goes fully online.

And it's the highest level before DMM: Persist shenanigans become viable.

EDIT: Humans can have it online by 3rd level, but at 6th level they'll have the feat left over for Extra Turning, making it ACTUALLY viable, not just technically. :smalltongue:

[SleepyBadger]

I thought the highest level before DMM was 0...

[dextercorvia]

A Human Cleric with the right domains can DMM Persist at 1st. He doesn't have much interesting to do with it at that level, but he can do it.

[TroubleBrewing]

A Human Cleric with the right domains can DMM Persist at 1st. He doesn't have much interesting to do with it at that level, but he can do it.

1st? :smallconfused: You need Extend Spell, Persist Spell, and DMM: Persist. Is there a way, excepting flaws, to get three feats at level 1?

[dextercorvia]

1st? :smallconfused: You need Extend Spell, Persist Spell, and DMM: Persist. Is there a way, excepting flaws, to get three feats at level 1?

Human: Persist
1st: DMM: Persist
Undeath domain --> Extra Turning
Planning domain --> Extend Spell

[SleepyBadger]

A Human Cleric with the right domains can DMM Persist at 1st. He doesn't have much interesting to do with it at that level, but he can do it.
Who knows? At low level if your character is especially poor even a mage armor might be worth persisting... Although I don't know what idiotic deity would grand both the Planning and Spell domains... probably the God of clerics planning on wraithstrike-cheese...

[TroubleBrewing]

Human: Persist
1st: DMM: Persist
Undeath domain --> Extra Turning
Planning domain --> Extend Spell

Huh. I had no idea that Planning granted Extend. Learn something new every day.

[SITB]

Who knows? At low level if your character is especially poor even a mage armor might be worth persisting... Although I don't know what idiotic deity would grand both the Planning and Spell domains... probably the God of clerics planning on wraithstrike-cheese...

The god of Batman Liches.


AKA Vecna.

[Lans]

At level 3 you should be Hold Person something scary looking at minimum/core!



Only if true namers are "casters", as there is no other way for a caster to suck better.

I would rather have a truenamer than a monk in my party, TBQH

[dextercorvia]

Who knows? At low level if your character is especially poor even a mage armor might be worth persisting... Although I don't know what idiotic deity would grand both the Planning and Spell domains... probably the God of clerics planning on wraithstrike-cheese...

Touch spells as Persistable is debatable. I won't argue it here. Plus, Mage Armor is a domain spell (for clerics) and your domains are spoken for. Divine Favor is alright later on, but Bless, or Entropic Shield are probably your best 1st level options in the PHB.

[SleepyBadger]

Touch spells as Persistable is debatable. I won't argue it here. Plus, Mage Armor is a domain spell (for clerics) and your domains are spoken for. Divine Favor is alright later on, but Bless, or Entropic Shield are probably your best 1st level options in the PHB.
Well, in a party of mixed characters I usually house-rule DMM so that the actual level of the metamagicked spell should be equal or less than the cleric's highest level spell... in this case DMM is still a nice feat to have but not completely broken. And than you don't have to read WotC's ridiculous arguments about touch spells not having fixed range...

[MeeposFire]

I would rather have a truenamer than a monk in my party, TBQH

I would too but only if you house rule or have a player that can optimize the heck out of the checks.

[Togo]

It's just an example: I just tried to say that you could use your spells on the Fighter, but most of the times is not so useful because the Fighter could do few thing, really few thing.

And I gave you a list of options for the fighter.



Unfortunately, no. There's no aggro mechanic in D&D. The Fighter simply cannot reliably get targeted.

Depends how good he is at battlefield control. A competantly played front-liner can generally prevent an opponent closing with anyone else for the first round or two, stop them manoevering, and stop them ever getting a full attack.



Again, a Fighter to be halfway efficient needs magic.

Most characters use magic. Is anyone arguing otherwise?


Let's be practical here. The whole "the Fighter can fight all day and the Wizard is really only good for 4-6 encounters" is a point in the Fighter's favor if and only if the Fighter is in a party without casters.

No, the point is that a wizard trying to do without front-liners is burning spells much faster than he would otherwise do. Spells used for defence are spells not used to overcome encounters.


The caster knows not to blow his wad too early, so he parses out his spells across the adventuring day. When he's running low, he announces to his party that he's low on resources (but not out, because he should always be prepared for something), and the party rests. This is how it has worked for literally every party with a caster in it that I have played in in all the time I played 3.5.

Your party can always rest when you want to? I tend to get into situations where the party has some kind of constraints on their actions. Either way, if you have a wizard trying to be a wizard and a front-liner at the same time, you run out of spells that much faster. Having a front-liner means your spells last longer.


And if you needed more examples that prove a fighter isn't really necessary in a 3.5 game,

I agree you don't need to have anything other than full casters, merely that it's better to have the variety.


See, since D&D is a cooperative game, the party is expected to work together. If there's a Fighter and a Wizard that are bff adventuring buddies, and the Wizard needs to rest after 5 encounters, it doesn't actually matter how long the Fighter can do his thing before he needs to take a break, because he's going to be resting after 5 encounters anyway.

Sure, but if the wizard is also trying to be front-liner, he'll run out of spells within 3 fights. That's the point of a cooperative game - it's more efficient to have someone else defend you than do it yourself.


Only if he feels like being the least useful guy at the table. Fighters who spec for melee damage absolutely blow at ranged combat, and vice versa.

An Ubercharger or whatever up against a flying opponent is about as useful as he would be had he taken levels in Warrior rather than Fighter.

This isn't my experience. Maybe you're overspecialising with your front-liners?


DMM: Persist Divine Power and Righteous Might(and whatever else you might want to persist for that matter) for Cleric, Wildshape for Druid.

You might have missed the point in the discussion where we ruled out both Persist and DMM.


Secondly, you don't need to be fully buffed for the whatever many hours of the day when nothing happens, you need to be fully buffed when the big fights happen. As a caster (as opposed to a fighter) you have more than adequate means to either scout the enemy(various divinations, stealthy familiars, stealth aiding spells on yourself) so you don't get surprised and have time to buff or even surprise the enemy yourself(so you're buffed and he's not)(scry&die tactics, approaching under invisibility and silence etc.).

So you're basing your combat superiority on never, ever, getting surprised, and being able to scry out every encounter in advance. Does this happen in your games, or is this another theoretical tactic that doesn't really work in play?


Third, even if somehow you do get ambushed and caught unprepared by something that you can't handle, at least as a caster you have the means to run away(turn invisible, fly away, burrow, teleport etc.). All the fighter can do is die (running away on foot in heavy armor doesn't really work).

Ok, so all the casters are superior purely because they can run away when they aren't buffed. (that's more spell slots) There's never a reason to fight the monsters other than because they happen to be there, no stakes involved in the fight, and no plot events that might make running way inadvisable or even self-defeating.

[Engine]

And I gave you a list of options for the fighter.

Options, of course. Really few options, compared to the list of options a Cleric or Druid have.


Depends how good he is at battlefield control. A competantly played front-liner can generally prevent an opponent closing with anyone else for the first round or two, stop them manoevering, and stop them ever getting a full attack.

Yes, and she needs a lot of feats. A Druid could just cast Entangle, a meager level one spell.


Most characters use magic. Is anyone arguing otherwise?

A magic that the Fighter couldn't provide.


No, the point is that a wizard trying to do without front-liners is burning spells much faster than he would otherwise do. Spells used for defence are spells not used to overcome encounters.

You are absolutely right. Frontliners are useful. It's just that Fighters frontliners aren't.


I agree you don't need to have anything other than full casters, merely that it's better to have the variety.

Sure. A variety of spellcasters, of course.


Sure, but if the wizard is also trying to be front-liner, he'll run out of spells within 3 fights. That's the point of a cooperative game - it's more efficient to have someone else defend you than do it yourself.

Again, you're right. It's just that a Fighter is not so efficient.

Anyway I'm starting to think that you can't be convinced that a Fighter, in a party, isn't that good.

[Endarire]

BrilliantGameologists ran the numbers on the optimal Druid and his animal companion as Hi Welcome (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9724.0).

[term1nally s1ck]

There's a few misconceptions around here.

#1. Fighter is balanced, CoD is OP.

For this one, just compare a high level fighter with any of the really high CR enemies. All the high CR enemies have spell likes or spells, and will straight up smash the fighter.

#2. CoD is balanced, Fighter is UP.

Compare with CR appropriate. CoD flat wins against every single CR appropriate encounter. No contest.

#3. The game was intended to be balanced.

Wizards came out and said that they INTENTIONALLY made casters much more powerful than mundane classes, because it made the setting feel more like fantasy.

A Frontliner needs precisely one thing. The ability to actually stop himself being ignored. The fighter is very good at standing there and looking threatening all day, but he CANNOT stop people going around him and attacking the wizard. He has literally no mechanics for doing so unless specifically and effectively optimised to control an area via AoOs. Which is completely denied by an easy tumble check. You have to OPTIMISE to be relevant in any way, and you are still pretty easy to avoid by just staying out of reach.

The only other way he can make himself relevant is to focus on doing a lot of damage....but a caster can also optimise damage to 'one shots anything it hits', and is still able to cast a whole bunch of other spells that do different things.

Animal Companions gain feats with the HD. It's in the PHB. They can very easily become as effective as a fighter at any given task.

At L5, a Fighter cannot defend against enemies with flight, enemies with any ability to hide or be undetectable, or anything that doesn't just 'move and attack'. A cleric can defend against everything for probably 3-4 encounters per day, using basic buffs and maybe a couple of devotions. In the very specific case of 'more than usual encounters against mindless mooks', the fighter can out-tank the cleric. Otherwise, he's not very useful.

[Divide by Zero]

No, the point is that a wizard trying to do without front-liners is burning spells much faster than he would otherwise do. Spells used for defence are spells not used to overcome encounters.
...
Sure, but if the wizard is also trying to be front-liner, he'll run out of spells within 3 fights. That's the point of a cooperative game - it's more efficient to have someone else defend you than do it yourself.

Except if your front-liner is also a caster, then you have more spells to burn. Which is kind of the point. Nobody is saying that wizard>wizard+fighter, but rather that wizard+caster>wizard+fighter.

[dextercorvia]

Except if your front-liner is also a caster, then you have more spells to burn. Which is kind of the point. Nobody is saying that wizard>wizard+fighter, but rather that wizard+caster>wizard+fighter.

Agreed. A Frontline Druid with Wizard support is going to be buffed twice as fast, and neither is going to run out of spells faster than the Frontline Fighter with Wizard support*. The more Spellcasters you have have in a party, the more spells there are to go around, and the more likely someone has the win button for that encounter. This makes for a more efficient expenditure of resources, and probably means that they can last for more than 4-5 encounters. Also, nobody is getting their toes stepped on because McCasty annihilated this encounter without help, because they know their turn is coming.


*That just feels weird to type. It should be a Wizard doing the work with a Fighter standing there to soak a couple of attacks and mop up.

[Lans]

I would too but only if you house rule or have a player that can optimize the heck out of the checks.
Actully with even a mediocre build I would take the Truenamer.
The truespeak amulets cover his lower levels, and on higher levels there is the perfected map line




#1. Fighter is balanced, CoD is OP.

For this one, just compare a high level fighter with any of the really high CR enemies. All the high CR enemies have spell likes or spells, and will straight up smash the fighter.

Technically the fighter can get through with WBL and some good level feat choices.





At L5, a Fighter cannot defend against enemies with flight, enemies with any ability to hide or be undetectable, or anything that doesn't just 'move and attack'.

A ranged fighter could easily deal with flyers. Though it would be a bit of a tossup on him vs melee monsters.

Technically anybody can deal with things that hide, and some sorts of undetectable.

Changing religions lets you deal with invisibility at level 5 for just one example.

[LordBlades]

You might have missed the point in the discussion where we ruled out both Persist and DMM.

So you're admitting that a DMM Persist cleric is a better frontliner than a fighter?
Regadless, Druid can stay in wildhshape all day, and I also posted a build a page back that can keep alter self up for 5 hours at level 5. I still have to be provided with a 5th level fighter that's a better frontliner than that.




So you're basing your combat superiority on never, ever, getting surprised, and being able to scry out every encounter in advance. Does this happen in your games, or is this another theoretical tactic that doesn't really work in play?

Yeah, my group do it in actual play and it works. We scry on known BBEGs that are not immune and we teleport straight on top of them when they least expect it. We use Contact Other Plane and divination to warn us about what we're going to fight the next day and when/where. We use Arcane Eye, Prying Eyes, Clairvoyance or chars with maxed hide/move silently, darkstalker and spells to make sure we don't really step into areas before we know what's there.

And we take precautions (high spot/listen checks, anticipate teleportation, divination protection) to make sure we don't fall victim to similar tactics.

All in all, we rarely get surprised by anything, and certainly not by the random monster in a dungeon.




Ok, so all the casters are superior purely because they can run away when they aren't buffed. (that's more spell slots) There's never a reason to fight the monsters other than because they happen to be there, no stakes involved in the fight, and no plot events that might make running way inadvisable or even self-defeating.

No. Casters are superior because they can pick their fights. If I can't win, I can run away so that I can come back better prepared. And by coming back I mean often as early as 10 minutes later,after I've safely cast all the needed buffs to crash their victory party. Or next day if the encounter requires some spells I don't have prepared. Meanwhile what can your fighter do if he runs into an encounter he can't handle? Most likely die. And even if he runs away, there's practically nothing he can alter in his build to be better prepared next time.

[term1nally s1ck]

A ranged fighter could easily deal with flyers. Though it would be a bit of a tossup on him vs melee monsters.

Technically anybody can deal with things that hide, and some sorts of undetectable.

Changing religions lets you deal with invisibility at level 5 for just one example.

Not frontlining, and not most fighters. Any caster can deal with all of the above with good use of spells.

[Midnight_v]

I keep hearing people say "front liners" but... what does that even mean really? Is that a measure of hp or something? Where did that even come from, It sounds like an even more nebulous term for tanking used because we know that doesn't work normally.

[term1nally s1ck]

the guy who stands on the front line, and does the hand-to-hand punching.

[Midnight_v]

the guy who stands on the front line, and does the hand-to-hand punching.

punching or damage dealing?

[term1nally s1ck]

doesn't matter if he's doing no damage or not. He stands on the front line and engages the melee.

[Starbuck_II]

BrilliantGameologists ran the numbers on the optimal Druid and his animal companion as Hi Welcome (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9724.0).

True, but than he makes major assumptions like Magebred is a choice for animal companions, but it isn't. As Animal Companion is a typical of it kind (Magebred isn't typical thereby disqualifying as animal companion).

So, with houserules Hi Welcome is fine, but not by RAW.

[Midnight_v]

doesn't matter if he's doing no damage or not. He stands on the front line and engages the melee.
What?
How?
Hp Sponging? He has to DO something other than walk into full attack range, thats not enough.

So it is a vague attempt to say "tank" without getting the response "tanking doesn't exist" how sad.
So he's what some kind of living battlefiled control, then? As someone who could actually write the tanking handook, the fact that THAT is NOT a ROLE is really glaring.
Why bother to engage a melee at all? Seriously, what mecanical/strategical benefit is derived by wandering up to a melee brute monster? Sigh.
Okay I get it at least now.

[term1nally s1ck]

Hey, I don't support the idea. I wasn't the one saying fighters could fill a role that doesn't exist.

I'm about as proficient with the attempt to make it viable in 3.5 as is possible. There's a few different ways to do it, and none of them are doable effectively as a Fighter. Or rather, none of them can be done any better by a Fighter.

[Midnight_v]

Hey, I don't support the idea. I wasn't the one saying fighters could fill a role that doesn't exist.

Ah! My bad sorry.

There's a few different ways to do it, and none of them are doable effectively as a Fighter. Or rather, none of them can be done any better by a Fighter
Right well I can think of 1 or 2 high level fighter builds that can toe-to-toe pretty well but they're optimization art on a certain level and need things like items of anti-magic etc, even then... there are problems.

thanks for the input though.

[term1nally s1ck]

Maybe...but what makes them any better as a Fighter than as any other class? I don't know of any that need *that* many feats to pull off.

[MeeposFire]

Maybe...but what makes them any better as a Fighter than as any other class? I don't know of any that need *that* many feats to pull off.

If you really want to play lockdown then you do need a crazy number of feats. You also really want a double damage feature which also limits your class choices.

[term1nally s1ck]

Crusader does lockdown perfectly fine, it's not *that* feat intensive.

[Midnight_v]

At which point we slide into the "Tanking" handbook. A guide to turn yourself into a living battlefield control spell.
THE TANKING HANDBOOK
Anyone can do it! (course you could use, I don't know... ACTUAL BFC spells)
Here goes: Components
Reach (the more the better/bonuses for large size)
Thicket of Blades
Standstill.
Combat Reflexes.

You may also use things like:
Trip
Goad (the feat from minis)
Charging (Incresing you damage output puts a target on you)
Robilars Gambit/Karmic Strike
Evasive Reflexes or Side step (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2620-sidestep.html) anything that gives you a 10ft step.
Damage to life tricks (Vampiric strikes etc)

Finally ways of dealing with opposing magics:
X magical Y: Feats from the Complete Arcane
Momentary Disjunction: From a prc
Items of anti-magic (If you are allowed, I've never been able to get my hands on one despite constant effort to get one)
Anit-divination effects: Get mind blank somehow.
Items: use items to fill any holes in your tank.
???
Profit.

Which non of thats really all that better compared to just casting grease/Wall of Arbitrarium/Entangle, Save And Suck spells... and summons.
Which is the answer to the tank not working in D&D.
I should likely put a lol in that spoiler somewhere.

[LordBlades]

True, but than he makes major assumptions like Magebred is a choice for animal companions, but it isn't. As Animal Companion is a typical of it kind (Magebred isn't typical thereby disqualifying as animal companion).

So, with houserules Hi Welcome is fine, but not by RAW.

Actually, rules are pretty contradictory on the issue of MAgebred animals. Eberron Campaign Setting specifically states that magebred animals can't be animal companions, but then Five Nations list two (Magebred Brown Bear and Magebred Ghost Tiger) as valid animal companions.

[Kojiro]

Admittedly, "tanking" is something of a concept that, outside of somewhat suicidal tactics, doesn't work well outside of video games. Unless you mean literally driving a tank, in which case it is an awesome tactic, but one that is not at all appropriate to (most) D&D games. But, anyway, it's understandable that it doesn't translate well to D&D, all things considered. Even in the world of D&D, "I make the monster hit me" is really, really odd unless you're made of metal or something. Even then, it's risky.

[Talya]

Actually, rules are pretty contradictory on the issue of MAgebred animals. Eberron Campaign Setting specifically states that magebred animals can't be animal companions, but then Five Nations list two (Magebred Brown Bear and Magebred Ghost Tiger) as valid animal companions.

Magebred animals in general are not valid animal companions. You cannot just apply the magebred template to any animal you want and make it your companion. However, the specific animals Magebred Brown Bear and Magebred Ghost Tiger are statted-up and listed as valid animal companions with an appropriate druid level adjustment, therefore they are valid animal companions.

[LordBlades]

Magebred animals in general are not valid animal companions. You cannot just apply the magebred template to any animal you want and make it your companion. However, the specific animals Magebred Brown Bear and Magebred Ghost Tiger are statted-up and listed as valid animal companions with an appropriate druid level adjustment, therefore they are valid animal companions.

I know how RAW works on this one. My point was that as far as RAI, they didn't seem very sure what they wanted to do with magebred and animal companions.

[FMArthur]

No, it's pretty clear that it's just those that are the exception. Really that build is full of similar dubious rules interpretations and uses Leadership abuse as if it had exclusive access. It's really kind of a pointless post. It's not like you couldn't use totally unambiguous rules to rock the faces off of everyone at the table with ordinary Fleshrakers with Venomfire or something.

[Kaeso]

Admittedly, "tanking" is something of a concept that, outside of somewhat suicidal tactics, doesn't work well outside of video games. Unless you mean literally driving a tank, in which case it is an awesome tactic, but one that is not at all appropriate to (most) D&D games. But, anyway, it's understandable that it doesn't translate well to D&D, all things considered. Even in the world of D&D, "I make the monster hit me" is really, really odd unless you're made of metal or something. Even then, it's risky.

There are some classes that can pull the tanking gig off pretty well in DnD. Not fighters of course, but there are a few:

1. The Crusader. Some of his abilities are focused towards attracting enemies and he gains bonus damage if he's wounded.
2. Casters, as they can reduce the enemies ability to hit them through things like mirror image, blur, displacement, entropic shield etc.

Yes, even a properly built wizard (more likely than not a gish) can out-tank a fighter, if that's not sad I don't know what is.

[Amphetryon]

There are some classes that can pull the tanking gig off pretty well in DnD. Not fighters of course, but there are a few:

1. The Crusader. Some of his abilities are focused towards attracting enemies and he gains bonus damage if he's wounded.
2. Casters, as they can reduce the enemies ability to hit them through things like mirror image, blur, displacement, entropic shield etc.

Yes, even a properly built wizard (more likely than not a gish) can out-tank a fighter, if that's not sad I don't know what is.The Knight is another class that's built to be reasonably good at forcing enemies to hit it, rather than someone else.

[term1nally s1ck]

Magebred animals in general are not valid animal companions. You cannot just apply the magebred template to any animal you want and make it your companion. However, the specific animals Magebred Brown Bear and Magebred Ghost Tiger are statted-up and listed as valid animal companions with an appropriate druid level adjustment, therefore they are valid animal companions.

That is of course, assuming that 'A completely normal animal of its type' means that no templates of any sort can be applied in any way. Which is NOT CLEAR.

You CAN have a completely normal for its type magebred fleshraker. It doesn't stand out from the other magebred fleshrakers in any particular way.

In fact, the RAW definition of 'Type' would allow it, since it would still have all the Animal traits.

Do not make assumptions about what sentences mean, and then bleat that you know the RAW better. Look at it PROPERLY before talking about it.

[Talya]

That is of course, assuming that 'A completely normal animal of its type' means that no templates of any sort can be applied in any way. Which is NOT CLEAR.

You CAN have a completely normal for its type magebred fleshraker. It doesn't stand out from the other magebred fleshrakers in any particular way.

In fact, the RAW definition of 'Type' would allow it, since it would still have all the Animal traits.

Do not make assumptions about what sentences mean, and then bleat that you know the RAW better. Look at it PROPERLY before talking about it.

Really, now, was all the scolding necessary, especially because you're wrong? My post had nothing to do with the phrase "'A completely normal animal of its type" and everything to dow ith the fact that the ECS specifically says magebred animals cannot be animal companions.

I won't go into your argument on "a normal animal of its type."

[Gametime]

That is of course, assuming that 'A completely normal animal of its type' means that no templates of any sort can be applied in any way. Which is NOT CLEAR.

You CAN have a completely normal for its type magebred fleshraker. It doesn't stand out from the other magebred fleshrakers in any particular way.

In fact, the RAW definition of 'Type' would allow it, since it would still have all the Animal traits.

Do not make assumptions about what sentences mean, and then bleat that you know the RAW better. Look at it PROPERLY before talking about it.

That interpretation renders the descriptor pointless, though, because literally any creature is typical for its kind if you consider "kind" to be "the subset of creatures that includes this creature." Surely I'm not the only one to think it sounds silly to say "This multiheaded pseudonatural magebred gelatinous dog is a completely typical multiheaded pseudonatural magebred gelatinous dog! It doesn't have any traits that any animal with those templates wouldn't have!"

(Also, the word is "kind," not type. I don't think that favors one interpretation or the other, it just means we probably shouldn't bother arguing about the characteristics of the "animal" type.)

[term1nally s1ck]

As most people, I interpret that line to mean it has the same base stat array and the same feats as listed in the books.

And I am *well* aware there's specific text saying magebred is not an option. I'm talking to the people before who jumped up and down saying 'magebred isn't typical for its kind'.

Do not take loose interpretations of ruletext and tout them as RAW when a different interpretation is STILL supported by the same text.

[Talya]

And I am *well* aware there's specific text saying magebred is not an option. I'm talking to the people before who jumped up and down saying 'magebred isn't typical for its kind'.


Well, I didn't say that, and I'm the one you quoted and replied to. I specifically quoted the reference that Magebred animals are not valid ACs in my post, and yet Magebred Brown Bears and Magebred Ghost Tigers specifically are allowed. That's all i am referring to here.

I'll stay out of your argument re: "typical for its kind," except to say, your definition doesn't make much sense to me. That said, I think Warbred/War Trained animals are legal by RAW, and I wouldn't allow them, either.

[term1nally s1ck]

I did? :smallconfused:

Huh. That's my mistake, I must have hit the wrong post.

[Coidzor]

The typical for its kind thing is only for 1st level druids anyway from where it and how it appears in the text unless I'm missing some kind of reiteration of it applying it beyond that.

[dextercorvia]

Well, in a party of mixed characters I usually house-rule DMM so that the actual level of the metamagicked spell should be equal or less than the cleric's highest level spell... in this case DMM is still a nice feat to have but not completely broken. And than you don't have to read WotC's ridiculous arguments about touch spells not having fixed range...


You might have missed the point in the discussion where we ruled out both Persist and DMM.

I'm glad that both of you have (for your group) perfectly reasonable house rules. However, we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules.

DMM exists. Persistent Spell exists. By the power of RAW, we combine them, and Clerics stomp all over a Fighter's intended role. And yes, they still manage to have Cleric things they can do for 4-5 encounters per day on top of that.

Clerics don't have to DMM Persist to be relevant, but it is an option.

[Talya]

I'm glad that both of you have (for your group) perfectly reasonable house rules. However, we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules.

DMM exists. Persistent Spell exists. By the power of RAW, we combine them, and Clerics stomp all over a Fighter's intended role. And yes, they still manage to have Cleric things they can do for 4-5 encounters per day on top of that.

Clerics don't have to DMM Persist to be relevant, but it is an option.

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

[Gametime]

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

I don't think it's optimal to devote all your resources to being a better fighting-man, but it only takes a few spells to make the cleric a melee monster. DMM: Persist is likely worth picking up for the potential defensive buffs; once you've got the ability, blowing some turning attempts and two spell slots on getting large size + full BAB seems like a reasonable idea. You've still got all your other spells to handle situations inappropriate for melee, but being a melee beast who can still full cast is nothing to disdain (heck, look at the druid).

The cleric probably shouldn't waste time trying to outdo Tome of Battle classes, but it's so trivial to just keep up with melee that most clerics will probably do it.

[Kaeso]

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

Let's also not forget that you don't need DMM: Persist to use divine power. At mid levels it surely lasts long enough to last most of the encounter:smallamused:

[Gnaeus]

Let's also not forget that you don't need DMM: Persist to use divine power. At mid levels it surely lasts long enough to last most of the encounter:smallamused:

And DMM quicken still lets you outfight the fighter if you need to outfight the fighter, gives you more options in spell combat, and requires one feat less.

[FMArthur]

Let's also not forget that you don't need DMM: Persist to use divine power. At mid levels it surely lasts long enough to last most of the encounter:smallamused:

Yeah, but that's a turn in battle used for it. The barbarian and rogue get to use their first turns in combat to murder a target of their choice. 1 turn is a noticable delay that bumps them up to being more effective than you if you're just using your cleric to whack people in the face.

[Kaeso]

And DMM quicken still lets you outfight the fighter if you need to outfight the fighter, gives you more options in spell combat, and requires one feat less.

Why waste a feat when ordained champion lets you auto-quicken all war domain spells (including divine power) and lets you cast them spontaneously as well?
Cast divine power as many times as you need to, wether you're in 4 fights a day or 9.

[Gnaeus]

Why waste a feat when ordained champion lets you auto-quicken all war domain spells (including divine power) and lets you cast them spontaneously as well?
Cast divine power as many times as you need to, wether you're in 4 fights a day or 9.

You are correct. That is also an excellent option for clerics of war deities. DMM Quicken works for anyone.

[Togo]

I keep hearing people say "front liners" but... what does that even mean really? Is that a measure of hp or something? Where did that even come from, It sounds like an even more nebulous term for tanking used because we know that doesn't work normally.

It's an attempt to describe a character built for engaging the monsters as a target of preference, without tying yourself down to either 'melee' or the fighter base character class.


So you're admitting that a DMM Persist cleric is a better frontliner than a fighter?

In many cases, of course. But if you're relying on DMM and/or persist, which are frequently banned for their power compared to other cleric options, then you're saying more about those options than you are about full casters in general.


Regadless, Druid can stay in wildhshape all day, and I also posted a build a page back that can keep alter self up for 5 hours at level 5. I still have to be provided with a 5th level fighter that's a better frontliner than that.

Hm.. Well, how about something like this?

Barbarian 1/fighter 2/Marshal 2

Combat expertise, improved trip, unarmed strike, improved grapple, rage, fast movement, motivate arts of war

Give him a reach weapon he can trip with, decent armour, a stat boost or two, and a bow. Stand him at the front of the party. What's the situation where an [I]alter selfed[I/] wizard is better?

Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.


Yeah, my group do it in actual play and it works. <snip>

It sounds like you play a very different style of game. I've never played in a game where unexpected things don't happen.


No. Casters are superior because they can pick their fights. If I can't win, I can run away so that I can come back better prepared. And by coming back I mean often as early as 10 minutes later,after I've safely cast all the needed buffs to crash their victory party. Or next day if the encounter requires some spells I don't have prepared.

By which time the princess is dead, in my game. I think we're just used to very different game styles.

If you have all this prep time, why bother with spells? I ran into one group (adventuring party plc) that managed to get rid of most their enemies financially. They didn't come back with new spells, they came back with 600 mercanaries, a full siege train, a real-estate deal and a load of commoners for witnesses and labour. They had an aversion to killing monsters that could be profitably sold on the open market. It worked... terrifyingly well.


Why bother to engage a melee at all? Seriously, what mecanical/strategical benefit is derived by wandering up to a melee brute monster? Sigh.


Why bother to fight monsters at all? What possible strategic/mechanical purpose does it serve? Going on adventures itself is horribly sub-optimal, and there are often safer options.


Yes, even a properly built wizard (more likely than not a gish) can out-tank a fighter, if that's not sad I don't know what is.

Technically a gish is a front-liner. The discussion was whether there is any point in playing anything other than a full caster. Which would include. It follows from that that any gish you can design would be better if replaced with a full caster. That seems like an extravagent claim.

I didn't mean to get everyone rilled up. I simply wanted to point out that full casters, while undoubtably very powerful and very flexbile, are not a better replacement for alternative choices in every game, and in every case.

[Kaeso]

Technically a gish is a front-liner. The discussion was whether there is any point in playing anything other than a full caster. Which would include. It follows from that that any gish you can design would be better if replaced with a full caster. That seems like an extravagent claim.

I didn't mean to get everyone rilled up. I simply wanted to point out that full casters, while undoubtably very powerful and very flexbile, are not a better replacement for alternative choices in every game, and in every case.

This is probably a matter of semantics, but isn't a gish a full caster already? Most Gish builds take only 2 levels in a melee class at best and don't skip any spell levels afterwards, which means they still get 9th level spells. IMHO that still makes them more of a caster than a frontliner.

Nevertheless, the ever-broken polymorph line makes a gish build an unneeded luxury if you want to break faces in melee.

[LordBlades]

In many cases, of course. But if you're relying on DMM and/or persist, which are frequently banned for their power compared to other cleric options, then you're saying more about those options than you are about full casters in general.

Of course, DMM and Persist are powerful options, but worthless ones unless you have good personal range buffs on your spell list.


Hm.. Well, how about something like this?


Barbarian 1/fighter 2/Marshal 2

Combat expertise, improved trip, unarmed strike, improved grapple, rage, fast movement, motivate arts of war

Give him a reach weapon he can trip with, decent armour, a stat boost or two, and a bow. Stand him at the front of the party. What's the situation where an [I]alter selfed[I/] wizard is better?
Defensive potential. The alter selfed wizard I posted is by all intents and purposes untouchable by almost anything a 5th level party will fight.
Also flight. You have a bow but unless you're bow-specced you're gogin to be doing 1d8+str/round.
Also, the hasted offensive potential of the wizard is at least equal to your raging damage potential, and he can do it as many times per day as you can rage (once), or more if he changes his 3rd level spells a bit, while you need a feat for extra rage.
Also, Alter Self wizard isn't the best frontliner by quite a large margin.
Try a 5th level stronghear halfling druid with Natural Bond, Companion Spellbond, SF: Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Greenbound Summoning, Ashbound (4 feats+2 flaws) and a Fleshraker animal companion.


Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.

You shouldn't take 'all day literally. I meant 'all the time you'd be sticking your nose into dangerous stuff' At level 6 (when you get Natural Spell and most Druids start using WS extensively) you get 12 hours of WS. Do you usually adventure for more than 12 hours a day? Why ride a horse when you can be one? Why climb a ladder when you can fly? The social interaction part is a bit tricky but it can be solved mid-level with permanent Telepathic Bond to the party face if you're really paranoid. I play Druids quite a lot, and that's what I usually do: if it's safe and I want to say something I'll go out of WS, if it's not, just transmit it to the party face via Telepathic Bond (which I get as soon as possible). I also sleep in Wildshape usually when out adventuring(if I'm high enough level to get 24+ hours of Wildshape.





It sounds like you play a very different style of game. I've never played in a game where unexpected things don't happen.
Unexpected stuff happens in our game too, it's just that it takes careful planning to bypass that kind of defenses so it doesn't happen that often. Regardless, I believe some manner of scouting happens in most D&D groups, so being surprised doesn't come up as often as some people imply.




By which time the princess is dead, in my game. I think we're just used to very different game styles.
Well, you missed my point. I meant encounters where you asses the situation and see you can't handle it. If a caster gets ambushed, he has 2 options: fight or flee. The fighter has just one. Also, unbuffed casters aren't as weak as you think. A druid with only Wildshape on, or a cleric with only long duration buffs are still very strong combatants.


If you have all this prep time, why bother with spells? I ran into one group (adventuring party plc) that managed to get rid of most their enemies financially. They didn't come back with new spells, they came back with 600 mercanaries, a full siege train, a real-estate deal and a load of commoners for witnesses and labour. They had an aversion to killing monsters that could be profitably sold on the open market. It worked... terrifyingly well.

It's spells that give you the prep time usually

[Gnaeus]

In many cases, of course. But if you're relying on DMM and/or persist, which are frequently banned for their power compared to other cleric options, then you're saying more about those options than you are about full casters in general.

* Shrugs *. A cleric can beat a fighter as a tank without DMM Persist. DMM quicken is less often banned, and certainly does the job, but lets count that out also. At level 8, the fighter is ahead by 9 hp, 2 attack bonus, 5 feats. The cleric has better will save, making him much less likely to be disabled by effects in combat. His relative weakness in HP is a minimal problem when you consider that he can always convert a spell to heal himself on the rare occasions in which it is necessary. Law Devotion (a swift action, usable multiple times per day with turn attempts, acquired for free by trading a domain), gives him a better to hit than the fighter (Except for rounds when the tank is self-buffing or self-healing, in which case it gives him a better AC). Greater magic weapon increases that further (while at the same time making him less vulnerable to tricks like sunder). Magic Vestments means that he is likely to have a higher AC. His range of situational spells (including Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Protection from Energy, Invisibility Purge, Neutralize Poison, Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, just in core) mean that he can stand up and keep tanking in fights where the fighter is disabled by poison/level drain/energy damage/grapples/mind control or stuff he just can't see. I would totally rather have a non-DMM cleric as a tank than a fighter, in almost any campaign that will last into mid levels, and regardless of what the rest of the party is composed of.



Give him a reach weapon he can trip with, decent armour, a stat boost or two, and a bow. Stand him at the front of the party. What's the situation where an [I]alter selfed[I/] wizard is better?

Invisible opponents. Swarms. Dire animals. Pretty much any ranged encounter. Any encounter which the party loses which requires running away. Flying opponents. Should I continue?


Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.

The pet is (at worst) almost as good as a fighter. In any situation where a melee fighter is helpful, pet should at least be able to buy a round or two for his master to buff himself to above fighter levels of competence.



If you have all this prep time, why bother with spells? I ran into one group (adventuring party plc) that managed to get rid of most their enemies financially. They didn't come back with new spells, they came back with 600 mercanaries, a full siege train, a real-estate deal and a load of commoners for witnesses and labour. They had an aversion to killing monsters that could be profitably sold on the open market. It worked... terrifyingly well.

There is a huge difference in common adventuring situations between "we run away, and come back 16 hours later" and what you describe. They may not have weeks to go back to the city and return with a siege train. They may be somewhere underground where 600 mercs aren't helpful. They may just be dealing with a random wilderness encounter, which may justify setting up camp in a rope-trick, but not a trip home.

Certainly, Rogue, Bard, Beguiler or Factotum can function as Tier 1s in a game in which they can retreat at will to a city and go shopping. The difference is that Tier 1s can function that way given 8-21 hours with no resources other than their own class abilities.


I didn't mean to get everyone rilled up. I simply wanted to point out that full casters, while undoubtably very powerful and very flexbile, are not a better replacement for alternative choices in every game, and in every case.

That is true. Anything T3 or above can usually serve a role even in most T1 parties, and may be better in their niche than a T1 would be. The only time I would rather have a fighter in my party than a T1 tank is in a world with lots of AMFs, and even then it is dependent on cheese level.

[term1nally s1ck]

As a high level caster specifically, you cast plane shift onto your genesis'd plane of flowing time, spend a day getting ready, and port back in fully buffed 6 seconds later.

At mid-level, you port out, spend a round or two buffing, and pop right on in again.

At lower levels, you probably have to fight. Same as any other class.

A cleric can either DMM:Persist, DMM: Quicken, or spend one round of buffs using quicken spell to have the standard 3 cleric buffs up by the second round's action, and is immediately as good at the basics as the fighter. He doesn't have as much ability to crowd control with AoOs, but he has spells for that, anyway.

And no, in most games, casters will not be as good at frontlining as fighters a lot of the time.

Becuase in most games, people DO NOT PLAY CASTERS AT FULL STRENGTH.

If you play a full strength caster at mid to high levels, he breaks the campaign. He uses maybe 2-3 spells of divinations to determine what the problem is, prepares, buffs up, and walks in and solves the problem with maybe 2-3 spells.

The *only* way around it is to use significant defence against divinations, which means your only counter is a high level spellcaster anyway.

In that situation, the wizard will be spending most of his spells on preparation, will buff up against most concievable problems, will have his many many Contingencies against everything else up, and will go to deal with whatever issue is forcing him to actually fight them.

[Doug Lampert]

I would argue that Persistent Divine Metacheese is actually suboptimal. Yes, a cleric can use it to do a fighter's job better than a fighter.

They could still be better if they didn't bother trying to do the "fighter's job." You don't need anyone to do the "fighter's job." If you feel the need to melee, druid, a druid's animal companion, or a TOB class is preferable. Hey, maybe a bardadin. But any Cleric trying to be a fighter is not trying to be a cleric, and a cleric is better than a fighter. Don't get a Tier 1 class to act at Tier 4 effectiveness by doing something in melee that's better accomplished with spells.

The thing is, showing that a cleric is a better cleric than he is a fighter doesn't show that fighter is weak.

The chain of logic is:
Cleric playing as cleric>>>Cleric pretending to be fighter>>cleric pretending to be fighter without DMM cheeze>actual fighter.

That's the chain (and the equivalents for wizard and druid) that shows the fighter is stupidly weak.

Even with that you STILL need to show that
Cleric+Cleric+Druid+Wizard>>>Fighter+Cleric+Rogue+Wizard
to show that the fighter is really badly designed, because if fighters actually were noticably better buffing targets than Druid's or the Druid's animal companion or the Cleric or whatever then the fighter would still have a reasonable place in a party.

Showing that cleric pretending to be a fighter is better than the fighter doesn't mean anyone actually thinks its a good idea, just that showing this is part of showing why fighters are badly designed.


And no, in most games, casters will not be as good at frontlining as fighters a lot of the time.

Becuase in most games, people DO NOT PLAY CASTERS AT FULL STRENGTH.

As Talya points out: If they are playing the casters to full strength then they're unlikely to pretend to be fitghters, they'll simply dispense with the role as unneccessary.

But if for some bizzaro reason the casters WANT to melee, they can do so, better than the fighter.

DougL

[Gnaeus]

Even with that you STILL need to show that
Cleric+Cleric+Druid+Wizard>>>Fighter+Cleric+Rogue+Wizard
to show that the fighter is really badly designed, because if fighters actually were noticably better buffing targets than Druid's or the Druid's animal companion or the Cleric or whatever then the fighter would still have a reasonable place in a party.

Even then its questionable. If the primary cleric and wizard aren't interested in spending the first few rounds of every combat tossing buffs, having a second cleric acting as a fighter is still better than a fighter. If the primary cleric and wizard are busy buffing someone else, or are too far away, or have already used buff X, or were themselves incapacitated by hostile action, having a second cleric acting as a fighter is still better than a fighter. If having another source of buffs in the party allow the cleric and wizard to prepare a wider selection of situational spells to win more varied encounters, the second cleric acting as a fighter is helpful.



Showing that cleric pretending to be a fighter is better than the fighter doesn't mean anyone actually thinks its a good idea, just that showing this is part of showing why fighters are badly designed.

But if for some bizzaro reason the casters WANT to melee, they can do so, better than the fighter.


I enjoy playing melee casters. I find muggle adventurers to be boring. I like the concept of the physical adept who uses his magic to be a warrior. I know that it isn't optimized, but it is fun for me.

[Grey Knight]

I'm glad that both of you have (for your group) perfectly reasonable house rules. However, we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules.

DMM exists. Persistent Spell exists. By the power of RAW, we combine them, and Clerics stomp all over a Fighter's intended role. And yes, they still manage to have Cleric things they can do for 4-5 encounters per day on top of that.

Clerics don't have to DMM Persist to be relevant, but it is an option.

I don't normally comment on this sort of thread, but I feel compelled to point out that ruling out divine metamagic isn't a houserule. Divine metamagic is an optional expansion rule, not core functionality, so ruling it out is the default case. Clerics doesn't have the ability to use divine metamagic unless the "house" stance specifically includes that expansion book and its associated rules. Your house might do so, but we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules. :o)

[term1nally s1ck]

If you would care to point to the passage in any 3.5 book where it says using any other 3.5 content is optional, except for the setting specific books, and UA, I'll be interested.

By default playing 3.5 includes all non-setting material published in 3.5.

[mootoall]

Well in that case, the Fighter doesn't get any splat books either, and gets gimped further. Divine Power is a core spell. Shock Trooper isn't a core feat.

[Gnaeus]

If you would care to point to the passage in any 3.5 book where it says using any other 3.5 content is optional, except for the setting specific books, and UA, I'll be interested.

By default playing 3.5 includes all non-setting material published in 3.5.

More than that, if you restrict discussion to Core, I can already make a perfectly capable melee druid, and a pretty decent cleric tank. I have real difficulties, on the other hand, making a melee fighter that functions nearly as well, because there aren't enough good feats to make the core fighter competent at his job.

Ack. Swordsages!

[Fox Box Socks]

Having played druids extensively, I can tell you that druids can't stay in wild shape all day. Sooner or later they have to talk to someone, climb a ladder, ride a horse, go near a town or settlement. At 5th level, you can't rely on being wild shaped all day.
Unless you're playing a solo adventure, yes, you actually can. It's not your job to be the party's face anyway, so staying in wolf form for a full 12 hour period is perfectly feasible assuming that the party's face is good enough with Diplomacy / Intimidate to...

You know what? No. This entire conversation is stupid. "The Druid isn't that good because the DM can put the Druid into situations that favor the Fighter" would be a terrible argument even if it didn't smack of Oberoni.

[TroubleBrewing]

You know what? No. This entire conversation is stupid. "The Druid isn't that good because the DM can put the Druid into situations that favor the Fighter" would be a terrible argument even if it didn't smack of Oberoni.

This whole THREAD smacks of Oberoni.

[Rogue Shadows]

I don't know what Oberoni is. Unless it's related to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

[LordBlades]

I don't know what Oberoni is. Unless it's related to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Oberoni fallacy is a fallacy along the lines of 'it's not broken because I can fix it' as far as I know.

[term1nally s1ck]

The Oberoni Fallacy is the fallacy that the rule stating that the DM can change the rules is a way to excuse flaws in the rules.

Just because the DM can say a druid cannot use X, Y, and Z, and we're going to be doing 6 encounters a day with interspersed time for social interaction in between each of them, does NOT make the fighter better than the druid in 3.5. It *might* make the fighter better in the specific campaign setting you are running, but that is not exemplary of 3.5.

[Fox Box Socks]

This is a textbook example of the Oberoni Fallacy:

"The DMM Cleric isn't that strong because the DM can just make sure he gets Greater Dispel Magic cast on him three times a day"

It's a fallacy because the second half of the sentence is contradicting the first half: if the DMM wasn't too strong to begin with, the DM wouldn't have to bombard the Cleric with Dispels.

It often gets combined with the Perfect Solution Fallacy, which in this case looks something like "Pff, Paladins aren't weak. What if a schizophrenic high-level Wizard teleports in and slaughters everyone that isn't a Paladin? Then everyone who isn't a Paladin dies!".

Short version? If the DM has to go out of his way to make sure the PC isn't dominating the game, that PC is too strong. And no, corner cases where the PC is at his weakest isn't enough to prove that the PC in question isn't all that strong.

[Kojiro]

Indeed, although some people seem to misinterpret it as being against "fixing" problems on your own. It's merely stating that, if you have to "fix" something, then it is a problem by the very fact that you are proposing fixing it.

Breakdown of fallacy as it would apply to this threat:

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are balanced and that everyone else is overreacting," passes. It's arguable as to correctness, but that's not my point here.

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are too powerful," is also fine.

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are too powerful, so I houserule/ban/limit things/put them in situations set against them," passes; again, not commenting on whether or not it's a good solution, just on whether or not the fallacy applies.

-"I think that Clerics and Druids are not broken because I can take away their magic/Wildshaping/companion/whatever is broken," is not fine. If there were not a balance problem, then you would not need to fix it. That you do so contradicts your own statement and undermines your point entirely. This is specifically what the fallacy applies to (well actually it originally applied to whether or not rules were broken or inconsistent, but whatever); it's not whether or not things should be houseruled or limited, but that if you are doing so you cannot claim that there is no problem there when you yourself have taken efforts to fix that problem.

Alternatively, here's a link (http://bb.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=6&thread=12). Posting this mainly because people quoting/applying these fallacies (like the people who have the exact opposite of the meaning of the Stormwind fallacy in mind when they bring it up) bothers me... Although actually this thread seems to have it right so far. Not sure why I typed all that, in retrospect.

[dextercorvia]

I don't normally comment on this sort of thread, but I feel compelled to point out that ruling out divine metamagic isn't a houserule. Divine metamagic is an optional expansion rule, not core functionality, so ruling it out is the default case. Clerics doesn't have the ability to use divine metamagic unless the "house" stance specifically includes that expansion book and its associated rules. Your house might do so, but we can't objectively compare a class's ability to fill a role by using your houserules. :o)

There is such a thing as a core only discussion. This was never one. Once you are in the larger body of RAW, DMM is a perfectly legitimate option. As others have said, the Fighter is hampered much more by core only than any of the T1 spellcasters in the PHB.

Warning: Anecdotal Evidence ahead. I played a cleric in a core only game, starting at level 1. Somewhere around level 3, one of the party members asked OOC if I was playing a Cleric or a Paladin. Part of that was lack of system knowledge on his part (I had been healing before level 2). But, mostly it was rp'ing him as a Warrior of Light, and being our only tank since the Barbarian's player left after like the third encounter 1. We did perfectly well with Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. As a matter of fact, the amount of healing I had to do went down, because the Barbarian had needed so much constant patching.

[Kojiro]

I think that would be anecdotal evidence, technically, not empirical evidence. Could be wrong, admittedly, but I'm pretty sure.

[dextercorvia]

I think that would be anecdotal evidence, technically, not empirical evidence. Could be wrong, admittedly, but I'm pretty sure.

You are correct. I guess my brain is on summer vacation.

[MrRigger]

Well, that's not terrible. It is summer, after all. Summer vacation is allowed in this case.

MrRigger

[Grey Knight]

To reply in bulk to all those shouting me down with "but the cleric is still broken in core!"; I wasn't saying anything different to this. I was pointing out that not using expansion books which make it more broken isn't "only a house rule" but is actually the opposite.


If you would care to point to the passage in any 3.5 book where it says using any other 3.5 content is optional, except for the setting specific books, and UA, I'll be interested.

By default playing 3.5 includes all non-setting material published in 3.5.

Haha what? Are you serious. So my friends and I aren't "really" playing 3.5 because we haven't bought all the books. The reams upon reams of splatbooks are, as you say, not optional. Well I've learned something today at any rate.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't usually post in optimisation-related threads, I'll clear off now. We now return you to your regularly scheduled nerditry.