Banning lower-tier melee in favor of ToB?[3.5]

[Chaosvii7]

I was trying to run through my head just how the game would change if we struck Fighter, Rogue, and Monk from the records and replaced them with ToB base classes. Not that they're 1:1s of the classes they replace, but do you think that banning the underperforming melee combatants in favor of more diversified classes works?

[ArcturusV]

Eh, it kind of depends. I haven't messed around with ToB, but I have noticed that even "low tier" stuff does tend to get dipped into here and there, if you can afford it. I've had players dip into Monk 1 just to get Improved Unarmed Strike and a +2 to all saves before. Fighter 2 is something I also tend to see a lot of, because, hey, bonus feats. Even if they are already using a more powerful class in general like the Barbarian.

Rogue I'd be leery of dropping. Most of the "Rogue Like" replacements I've run just haven't been as good as the Rogue at what the rogue does. Until you get to the point where Tier 1 casters can just negate the need for a rogue anyway. Though I have yet to see a Factotum in any of my games so I don't know if they fit the Skill Monkey/Scout concept better than a Rogue.

Oddly enough I haven't seen actual Scouts (The class) do the Rogue Point Man role any better than a Rogue. I am guessing it's mostly because what Scouts I have seen were far too focused on trying to be damage dealers and just didn't bother with it.

So there's that as a concern.

[Waker]

It wouldn't have a very big effect. Fighter and Monk are mostly dip classes. The only thing maybe affected would be the loss of Trapfinding from Rogue being taken out, but there are other classes which can get it. Not to mention that traps are a fairly uncommon threat in most games that I've played.

[white lancer]

A DM who decided to take out the Rogue could also make the decision to remove traps from the game (or at least make them very uncommon). Tailor the game to the party.

Although I generally don't see a problem with leaving the weaker base classes for someone who really wants to play them, unless the rest of the party is going to be outshining them by leaps and bounds.

[Alanzeign]

I'm going to preface this statement with the fact that I don't know much about ToB except for its praise towards somewhat better balance but...

Why ban weaker melee? Why not simply inform the player "This is a weaker version of a class" and allow them to make their own choice? There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to play a craftsman dwarf fighter if they choice to do so, especially if you the DM inform them of what their choice means (if they aren't already aware). You don't ban weak options if the player 'knows' they are weak and want to play them anyways. You ban options that break the game, and no weak options do that unless that player has some unreal concept that all classes will scale to their choice in power.

D&D 3.5 is all about options. Give them the options and make them aware of the implications their choices create. If you want less options choose a different edition or system, but no, I don't see any real advantage to outlawing low tier classes unless you think your players are too ignorant to understand that concept even with your explanation.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Ban? I wouldn't. I would just tell the players that you would prefer that they don't play those options. Honestly, I'd be more in favor of banning tier 1 characters.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'd say, "I strongly want to encourage you to play classes around Tier 3. Here is the complete list of Tier 3 Pathfinder and D&D classes."

[Gnome Alone]

I'm the only player in my group even sort offamiliar with ToB, so this is kinda theoretical, but:

I think I'd prefer hearing "You could be another fighter, but look at the cool jazz a warblade can do" to "Dude, you can't play a fighter again."

[Logic]

Since the Fighter, Rogue and Monk are some of my favorite classes to play, I would be very annoyed. In games where I play these classes, I am usually no lower than the second most important combatant of the party (and my group size averages at six players.)

[Telonius]

If you ban rogue, anything contingent on sneak attack as a class feature (looking at you, Craven) is going to be a lot harder to get. Not impossible, just very annoying. Allowing Assassin's Stance to count for purposes of prereqs would help a lot.

[Chaosvii7]

Honestly, I'd be more in favor of banning tier 1 characters.

Fair enough - I suppose just because they're tiered doesn't mean that there's an equal distance of skill and capability between every tier. The difference between tiers 4 and 5-6 is arguably the MAD, which amounts to what is actually just a few cheap points on a point buy, but everything south of tier 3 can quite literally only hold a torch to tier 1 players, to give them some light so they can solve every problem with a spell.

For those who have seen me inquiring an awful lot about the tier system and balance in the last week and seeing all the "oh it's purely hyptothetical blah blah blah" - I just found out about the tier system about 2 weeks ago, it's still the most fascinating thing to me because I never noticed it at all. Though after seeing that wizards have far more theorhetical power than any character who wants to solve problems by swinging a sword ever could, it really makes you wonder, you know? I'm not asking all of these for literally "no reason" - I'm just asking to see what your experiences are with the system and how it really matters in a game.

Though I do have to give due credit to my DMs for being so good at running the games that I never noticed it until I joined GiantITP regularly.

[MukkTB]

#1 Low tier classes can be dipped and used successfully.

#2 It may be desirable to have characters who are martial in nature but are not educated in higher martial arts. This is an appropriate niche for a fighter, mook #75. This is a popular eastern trope. Remember that one anime* where some angry kid won a fight because he was familiar with a better fighting style than his opponent.

Now I don't disagree with limiting player class selection in order to fit a theme or power level. Everyone is a ninja is ok. Everyone is tier 3 is ok. My advice here was intended for more free sandbox play where anything goes.

*Any of hundreds.

[Alanzeign]

I think for as many people have posted, banning is not something you want to entertain here. You want to suggest and move people towards 'appropriate' tier level for your game and still allow them to make their own choices. Some people decide to do point-buy based on perceived tier of a class combo. This can be difficult, but if a Tier 4 fighter has a 36 point buy and remains fighter throughout they might be somewhat more on par with a 28 point buy wizard or sorcerer.

I used a system similar to the above (28 tier 1/2, 32 tier 3, 36 tier 4, 38 tier 5, don't play tier 6), but I attempted to clear things with people in advance. When it turned out the rogue (originally T4) decided to be some sort of gish (rogue/barb/sorc/swiftblade) I decided he'd be more T3 to not invalidate choices made at level 1. It's not perfect, but it does help clear up some of the issues.

There are any other number of ways to work around this, and even if you don't want to attempt any type of balance work around there is no need to ban some of the weaker classes. Offer suggestions, not "You can't play some of the most iconic classes of D&D." That's just...ridiculous.

[Alanzeign]

I'm not saying that this tier-point buy based system is infallible, because it definitely is not, but it might be a step in the right direction vs. banning low-tiers. If anything, I can see banning high tiers like wizard/cleric/druid/sorc, but banning fighter and rogue? Or monk or barbarian? That just seems...completely removed from the entirety of D&D for me. Just my 2 cents though.

[ArcturusV]

Well, you want to watch out for this scenario:

"Okay, we will adjust point buy based on class."

"Well I really want to play a monk."

"Okay, 50 Point Buy."

*builds character, plays his monks, levels up* Okay, I'm taking Cleric now for my second level.

Because with the quality of some DnD players I've played with. Okay, about 60% of them. They would not hesitate to do that. It would be the first thing crossing their minds when they heard that rule.

[Yogibear41]

I'd say banning anything that someone wants to play is a bad idea:smallfrown:

I under stand your point of wanting to keep the game balanced though.

I've heard that higher point buys improves alot of lower tier classes more than it helps higher tier classes. In this case you could always throw out point buy completely and let the players have pretty absurd starting stats. In a game I'm playing it we roll 5d6 for each stat, and then afterwards you can subtract 1 from every stat to add 1 to any other stat (max of 18 before modifiers of course) I'm currently playing a character with 4 18s lol go figure, dumped my charisma to nothing. But at the same time he currently runs around with no armor and only a dagger for a weapon because thats how I want to role play him.

[Chaosvii7]

I'd say banning anything that someone wants to play is a bad idea:smallfrown:

I under stand your point of wanting to keep the game balanced though.

I've heard that higher point buys improves alot of lower tier classes more than it helps higher tier classes. In this case you could always throw out point buy completely and let the players have pretty absurd starting stats. In a game I'm playing it we roll 5d6 for each stat, and then afterwards you can subtract 1 from every stat to add 1 to any other stat (max of 18 before modifiers of course) I'm currently playing a character with 4 18s lol go figure, dumped my charisma to nothing. But at the same time he currently runs around with no armor and only a dagger for a weapon because thats how I want to role play him.

I definitely want to try using the scaling point buys for games I run now, that's a given, I'm just trying to imagine most everything else that I can do for the sheer ability of it. I totally get the concept of "don't ban things, try and redirect or reapproach things with alternatives or homebrew".

[Alanzeign]

@ArcturusV

I agree with you whole heartedly, which is why I as a DM make those decisions for every level up. In the only game I'm running right now I have a character that started out as a rogue (T4), took levels as barbarian (also T4), then took a level of sorcerer (T2) and 3 levels of human paragon (N/A), then continued to take sorcerer levels (T2) until he applied for swiftblade. As a gish character with highly diverse skills (rage WF variant, trapfinding, rogue variant for fighter feats instead of sneak attack, and 4 levels of sorcerer casting as a total level 9 character, I still say he rates at a T4. When he starts gaining the benefits of swiftblade, I ruled that he will move to a T3, sacrificing (for my campaign at least) 4 point buy, going from 36 to 32.

The system I am employing is in no way perfect, but I believe it superior to disallowing iconic D&D classes that people in your campaign actually want to play. Try comparing existing information and supplementing it with what you think will work, then attempt to work within that player's 'educated' decision.

[Gnome Alone]

Tier-based point buy seems a bit inelegant.
If I cared that hard about it, I'd tryto get everyone to play either the same tier... OR a character of significant enough power and/or versatility to be fun. I mean, some people LIKE being a one-trick pony.

[RFLS]

Ban? I wouldn't. I would just tell the players that you would prefer that they don't play those options. Honestly, I'd be more in favor of banning tier 1 characters.

Hey, looks like we're 2 days ahead of schedule, according to your sig.

On topic: Yeah, banning T1s is a better step towards balance than banning T4 and below. TBH, though, I prefer to allow all the classes and just trust the players.

[HunterOfJello]

Whatever you do, don't drop the Rogue class. The Swordsage's skill monkey status is far more similar to the Ranger than the Rogue. The rogue is a very unique class that hasn't been fully replaced by any other. Even replacing it with the Factotum isn't a great idea since they operate quite differently.

Leave the rogue alone.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'd drop Rogue for Psychic Rogue.

Between Swordsage, Unarmed Swordsage, Psychic Rogue, and Factotum, you have all the roguelikes (hehehehe) you could want...

[Alanzeign]

Oh, it is inelegant. It is not the best choice by far, but depending on the level range of your campaign it can affect balance positively. With 28 point buy at level 1 caster types suck and 38 point buy fighter types rule. By level 11 that is reversed, with casters having the cool options and fighters are still hitting things with a stick (and quite well).

With increased point buy for lower tiers at least mechanically there is some balance. A fighter can't compete with a flying invisible wizard, but a fighter with power attack, leap attack, and a 30 in STR due to racial/tier/enhancement bonuses can at least deal 60ish damage with a charge, potentially 40ish per hit with at least 3 attempts at hitting (and still with a large percentage to hit). Sure a wizard will have spells but generally with lowered point buy their spell DC will be around 19-23 by 11th level. Magic Items can make up some of the difference at these mediocre power levels. Thankfully my full casters have taken options to diminish their full-casting because the high end spells really break the game and quickly, 7th+ get insane.

It all depends on what the DM allows. Personally, I choose to disallow high/game breaking levels of play rather than disallowing low/weak levels of play.

[Gnome Alone]

I'd drop Rogue for Psychic Rogue.

Between Swordsage, Unarmed Swordsage, Psychic Rogue, and Factotum, you have all the roguelikes (hehehehe) you could want...

:durkon:Ach, lad, tha was 'orrible.

[Wings of Peace]

Truthfully I think banning the Fighter would be a mistake. He'll probably trail behind in the early levels but if we're talking non-multiclass comparisons the Fighter should perform at level with the Initiators when used as something hyper focused like an Uber-Charger or a Tripper.

[RFLS]

Truthfully I think banning the Fighter would be a mistake. He'll probably trail behind in the early levels but if we're talking non-multiclass comparisons the Fighter should perform at level with the Initiators when used as something hyper focused like an Uber-Charger or a Tripper.

That's not really the point of banning low-tier (which is dumb anyway, but w/e). The point is that the fighter would lack the versatility of ToB classes, even with a highly focused build like that.

[Wings of Peace]

That's not really the point of banning low-tier (which is dumb anyway, but w/e). The point is that the fighter would lack the versatility of ToB classes, even with a highly focused build like that.

I guess it would depend on what type of versatility the party needed. The op said "underperforming melee combatants" which I took to mean we're contemplating flat effectiveness at a fighting task rather than pure versatility.

[Komatik]

Banning the Rogue sounds like a mistake here.
Correct modus operandi is to encourage people wanting fighter, paladin or monk character style concepts to look at the ToB.

Marketing:
Move AND hit people well! (I mean, charge, full attack? That's so passé)
Annoy opponents with conditions
Attacks of opportunity? Here's one. And another. How about a third? Want one more?
That "knight of justice" schtick with a less onerous code of honor? Got you covered.
Skill points? For the Fighter equivalent? Oh, sure. Yes. Seems nice.
Bad saves? Did you say "Roll a Concentration check instead and use that as the save?"

In the past, the casters' choices of spending their time were:
1)Being awesome
2)Making you a bit less aggressively mediocre (a good bit of attention needed from them)
Now?
1)Being awesome
2)Making you awesome (Not much attention needed from them because you're already pretty awesome and independent)

Because ToB makes you just that much more awesome.
If you/ your players can't figure out this ridiculous value proposition, I recommend calling the white coats.

[Chilingsworth]

I don't see the point of banning poor options. Afterall, either the person buildig the character wants that poor option for some reason (in which case what's the problem?) Or, taking the option will be its own punishment.

In either case, banning hardly seems needed. :smallconfused:

For that matter, I don't see the point of "balancing" the classes anyway. You don't like being weak? Then don't take the crappy options!

EDIT: Also, what TPAM said. :smallbiggrin: