[3.5] Class balance attempt [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Stella

2014-03-05, 08:49 PM

Let me start by saying that I do not believe that any amount of work will ever result in anything which can achieve a common consensus as having succeeded in balancing the classes in D&D 3.5. But if you don't try, you have already failed.

Here is my attempt, which has grown out of years of play and the input from many different people. I'm still open minded enough to consider modifying it from other input, so please feel free. Just be aware that suggestions that casters be allowed access to vast amounts of splat book spells probably won't be taken seriously unless you beck that suggestion up with a lot of logic and rationale.

As a short summary, it could be condensed as being "more skills, feats, and stats for non-casters (or "slow casters" such as Paladins and Rangers)."

I haven't included the House rules mentioned at the start, but it is essentially a list of nerfed spells, which includes most of the abusive spells which exist even in Core 3.5. The Polymorph line of spells being a primary example. Also, all "silly" exploits such as taking your ladder and splitting it into two poles and selling them for more than the ladder cost, right out. Diplomacy is highly modified so it isn't (as) exploitable. Etc.

What it intended to accomplish:

Giving the martial classes access to more feat chains at an earlier level, thus increasing their versatility and eliminating the limited use of a second feat chain at the high levels which they now require.
Similarly, giving more skill points per level to the martial classes in order to enhance their flexibility.
Several of the martial classes are MAD, and this limits that.
Limiting (*ahem* eliminating) the spat book love which caster classes enjoy. The caster focused splat books provide vast amounts of new spells, feats, prestige classes, etc. And all this typically does is further distance the power difference between those classes and the non-casting classes. And how ironic is it that even in the "Complete" books which feature non-casters there are still dozens or hundreds of new spells introduced? And the same pretty much applies to feats and prestige classes.

When Tier I casters don't have access to the spells and feats and prestige classes which grant them piles of +spell DC, Metamagic level reduction, or a huge variety of spells for every occasion, Tier I casters are still Tier I casters!

Anyway, here it is. I'd appreciate any feedback, especially as it regards to balancing the non-casting or lower tier classes. I don't think there needs to be any additions to the casting classes, but I'll be happy to entertain further restrictions on the Tier I classes.

If you think that a specialist Summoner (or whatever other Tier I caster you can imagine) just can't be potent in this environment, I'm not as interested in your opinion, unless you can cite a lot of facts to convince me. And "I can't play the broken class combo of my choice" isn't going to hold a lot of water. This is an attempt at balance, and IMO I really don't think it goes far enough, but it should work pretty well in most campaigns.

I think we all know where the power curve lives, and it isn't with the non-casters. I've seen it done, and even a Fighter who happens to have 2 skill chains instead of one at L5 is still playing second string to the damage a Summoners creatures can deal out.

This loses all of the hypertext from the cut'n'paste. I've tried to restore it, but I may have failed here and there.

===============================================

Balancing the Classes in D&D 3.5
Game environment: Core only. Standard races only. Players of classes other than Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid may request permission to use Feats from other source material, at the GM’s discretion. Elite Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) or 25 point buy.
See House Rules for other changes.
Barbarian
Skill Points at 1st Level: (6 + Int modifier) ×4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 6 + Int modifier.
Barbarians have amazing stamina, and are able to shrug off some of the effects of fatigue. The fatigued penalty for Barbarians is (Can’t charge or run). This applies to all fatigue effects which the Barbarian may suffer, not just that which is applied at the end of a Rage.
Barbarians earn 2 feats on each 3rd level, instead of one.
+1 to 2 stats of players choice.
Bard
No change
Cleric
No change
Druid
The Druid may not be targeted by Awaken.
Fighter
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) ×4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
At each level past 2nd, the Fighter gains an additional Bonus feat. Where the Fighter already gains a Bonus feat, he gains two instead.
Fighters earn 2 feats on each 3rd level, instead of one.
+1 to 2 stats of players choice.
Monk
Skill Points at 1st Level: (6 + Int modifier) ×4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 6 + Int modifier.
Hit Die: D10
Monks earn 2 feats on each 3rd level, instead of one.
+1 to 2 stats of players choice.
Paladin
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) ×4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Paladins earn 2 feats on each 3rd level, instead of one.
+1 to 2 stats of players choice.
Ranger
Skill Points at 1st Level: (8 + Int modifier) ×4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 8 + Int modifier.
Rangers earn 2 feats on each 3rd level, instead of one.
+1 to 2 stats of players choice.
Rogue
Skill Points at 1st Level: (10 + Int modifier) ×4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 10+ Int modifier.
+1 to 2 stats of players choice.
A rogue can sneak attack any creature.
Sorcerer
No change.
Wizard
No change.

OldTrees1

2014-03-05, 09:54 PM

eggynack

2014-03-05, 09:54 PM

OldTrees1

2014-03-05, 10:01 PM

eggynack

2014-03-05, 10:04 PM

Polymorph can do it.
True, though at that point you can start awakening other party members, which is unrestricted. I'd probably either remove the restriction entirely, or make it restrictive in an actually meaningful manner.

AuraTwilight

2014-03-05, 10:33 PM

You'd really be more better off banning Core caster material than the splatbook stuff. Core is the most imbalanced part of the whole game.

Stella

2014-03-06, 05:40 AM

It's certainly balancing, though as you noted, it's also definitely not balance. The only house rule I can see that seems problematic is the thing about druids being unable to target themselves with awaken. It's not problematic because that's such a vital component of druid power, but rather because I don't think it's a thing you can do in the first place. Splat book spells like aspect of the wolf can pull it off, but I can't think of anything in core that can make a druid into an actual animal, type and all.I will freely admit to not being any kind of good at char-op, and my group isn't terribly good, either.

Awaken abuse seems to go hand in hand with druids, as once they Wild Shape (no duration) they are an animal* and can then Awaken themselves (Instantaneous duration) for an essentially free duration of the Awaken effects, which include a lot of sweet bonuses which make the martial classes irrelevant:

A magical beast has the following features.

10-sided Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

Traits

A magical beast possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.
Proficient with its natural weapons only.
Proficient with no armor.
Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe.

* The RAW appear to deny Druids the animal type (i.e. The citation under Alternate Form: The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form) and thus Awaken abuse is denied by RAW. But this is such a persistent Druid "abuse" that the specific prohibition seemed to be necessary in an attempt to balance the classes. Let the Druid be a bear and dish out large amounts of melee damage. The Fighter will still (hopefully) exceed that damage through the increased Feat chains they are given under this system.

As an intent: The Druid isn't supposed to lose the utility of their class ability to turn into an animal. They were only supposed to lose the ability to turn into an animal and be as good or a better fighter than the Fighter. There is no logic in a class which can deal out the same martial damage as the best non-caster classes while also retaining their casting capability.

The adjustments to the Fighter class were intended to maintain that class as a focused martial class.

Stella

2014-03-06, 06:02 AM

So Martial characters/Fighters go from 9/20 feats (2 flaws assumed) to 15/44 feats. They are going to run out of printed feats that are worth taking. If more worthwhile feats were made, then this fix would be effective.The intent here was to make martial classes have more feat chains at a lower level. Thus, the Fighter who specialized in Spiked Chain and Improved Trip could also be the Fighter who specialized in Great Sword and dishing out massive damage. And, this wouldn't require high levels to achieve.

I'm amused by your reference to flaws. That appears to be the min-maxers way to build a character. "I'll trade my characters ability to recite poems for another +1 to my Strength." The entire bonus to Fighter feats and skills isn't necessarily to maximize their damage so much as it is to increase their utility.

Stella

2014-03-06, 06:08 AM

OldTrees1

2014-03-06, 08:48 AM

The intent here was to make martial classes have more feat chains at a lower level. Thus, the Fighter who specialized in Spiked Chain and Improved Trip could also be the Fighter who specialized in Great Sword and dishing out massive damage. And, this wouldn't require high levels to achieve.

I'm amused by your reference to flaws. That appears to be the min-maxers way to build a character. "I'll trade my characters ability to recite poems for another +1 to my Strength." The entire bonus to Fighter feats and skills isn't necessarily to maximize their damage so much as it is to increase their utility.

Your intent was clear and matches the results this would create. However you have overestimated the feats worth taking.

So at low level this fighter will be taking:
Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Knock-down(not a Ftr feat), Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Knockback, Shock Trooper, Stand Still(not a Ftr feat)
So that is 7 Ftr feats (with prereqs up to BAB +6). A 6th level Ftr would have
12 Ftr feats (The normal 4 doubled to 8 plus 1 for each of the 4 levels above 2nd).
So more feats will need to be made to sate this fighter's thirst.

When I assume flaws, I assume responsible use of flaws. Like a meaningful reduction in a strength of the class (Fort) in exchange for another strength (another feat) as a means of customizing the class.

Please cite me any example of splatbook material which is any way more advantageous to non-casting classes. You don't seem to have argument here.

Tome of Battle is more advantageous to Martial characters than to casters.
Complete Warrior offers Martial characters several diamonds in the rough despite offering Clerics the Planning Domain. So it is more advantageous to Martial characters than to casters.

Rejusu

2014-03-06, 08:57 AM

Simple fix: ban everything tier 2 up full stop and ban everything beyond a dip (Max 6 levels) in anything below tier 4. You now have a relatively balanced set of classes to work with. It's not going to be completely uniform but it should do away with any Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit scenarios.

But really you should just balance on a case by case basis.

Edit: I'll also echo the statement that core has the most imbalanced material (the majority of the games strongest classes and some of its weakest). It's why another quick and dirty balance fix that's suggested is banning the PHB.

Komatik

2014-03-06, 09:05 AM

You'd really be more better off banning Core caster material than the splatbook stuff. Core is the most imbalanced part of the whole game.
Please cite me any example of splatbook material which is any way more advantageous to non-casting classes. You don't seem to have argument here.

The point AuraTwilight is trying to make here is that most of the caster options that really break the game exist in Player's Handbook. You pretty much have to scrounge through the entirety of 3.5's trove of splatbooks to scrable together an equal amount absurdly broken stuff.

In other words:
"Caster, full splat access, denied access to PHB spells" is probably weaker than "Caster, PHB only", with maybe Druids being the main exception. Maybe.

Meanwhile, basically all splatbook non-caster content is pure upside for non-casters in terms of both raw power and especially just fun things to do.

In yet more words, splatbook "phobia" is counterproductive. "PHB Spells section phobia" is productive :D

eggynack

2014-03-06, 10:59 AM

I will freely admit to not being any kind of good at char-op, and my group isn't terribly good, either.

Awaken abuse seems to go hand in hand with druids, as once they Wild Shape (no duration) they are an animal* and can then Awaken themselves (Instantaneous duration) for an essentially free duration of the Awaken effects, which include a lot of sweet bonuses which make the martial classes irrelevant:

* The RAW appear to deny Druids the animal type (i.e. The citation under Alternate Form: The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form) and thus Awaken abuse is denied by RAW. But this is such a persistent Druid "abuse" that the specific prohibition seemed to be necessary in an attempt to balance the classes. Let the Druid be a bear and dish out large amounts of melee damage. The Fighter will still (hopefully) exceed that damage through the increased Feat chains they are given under this system.

As you've noted, because wild shape is type preserving, it cannot combo with awaken. Awaken abuse is a thing that druids can do, but that's because they have access to non-core resources, like aspect of the wolf (SpC, 16), that change you into an animal and that are not type preserving. Thus, awaken abuse is not generally denied by RAW, but the book restriction you've already put in place removes that particular form of craziness.

Red Fel

2014-03-06, 11:19 AM

As a short summary, it could be condensed as being "more skills, feats, and stats for non-casters (or "slow casters" such as Paladins and Rangers)."

. . .

What it intended to accomplish:

Giving the martial classes access to more feat chains at an earlier level, thus increasing their versatility and eliminating the limited use of a second feat chain at the high levels which they now require.
Similarly, giving more skill points per level to the martial classes in order to enhance their flexibility.
Several of the martial classes are MAD, and this limits that.
Limiting (*ahem* eliminating) the spat book love which caster classes enjoy. The caster focused splat books provide vast amounts of new spells, feats, prestige classes, etc. And all this typically does is further distance the power difference between those classes and the non-casting classes. And how ironic is it that even in the "Complete" books which feature non-casters there are still dozens or hundreds of new spells introduced? And the same pretty much applies to feats and prestige classes.

When Tier I casters don't have access to the spells and feats and prestige classes which grant them piles of +spell DC, Metamagic level reduction, or a huge variety of spells for every occasion, Tier I casters are still Tier I casters!

Here's my concern, in several nutshells.

Nutshell the first: More skills and feats do not, and will not, put non-casters on an equal playing field with casters, even when casters are limited to PHB only. As you point out, "Tier I casters are still Tier I casters!" And what makes a Tier 1 or Tier 2 isn't just access to game-breaking abilities. It's versatility, it's having options for every scenario. And that's something that no amount of feats or skills will make up for with regard to non-casters. A caster can fly, can teleport, can speak any language and to anybody, (including but not limited to animals, plants, corpses, and deities) can see the unseen and in the deepest darkness. They can summon immensely powerful beings, can create elemental conflagrations and can alter their own forms to be just as good as the non-casters at anything the non-casters attempt. This is what makes a class Tier 1 or Tier 2. Your changes, while helpful, don't bridge this gap.

Nutshell the second: Some classes are poorly designed to begin with. Monk, for example, misses out on a lot, and giving him more skills and HD doesn't make up for that. Paladin, despite your claims of wanting to make classes less MAD, is still extremely MAD; your proposal hasn't altered that. You haven't actually changed how the classes work that causes them to be considered "weaker" than Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes; you've simply given them more HD, more feats, more numbers. That doesn't address the underlying problem.

Nutshell the third: As others have mentioned, limiting the splatbooks doesn't actually help all that much. First off, while there are "caster-focused" splatbooks, there are virtually no caster-excluding splatbooks; any splatbook that benefits non-casters almost inevitably has caster material in it. Second, as others have mentioned, some of the most game-breaking caster material is in the PHB; casters don't need the splatbooks to crack a DM's plans wide open or make the non-casters feel redundant. If anything, the splatbooks create a distraction - there are plenty of cool-sounding but ultimately underpowered spells in splatbooks that might keep a caster from choosing the ones that really would ruin the experience.

You said that you wanted to give the martials more feats and skill points to increase their versatility and flexibility. You've given them the feats and skill points, but I don't see the predicted increase in versatility. You said that you wanted to eliminate some MAD. I haven't seen that either. You said that you wanted to eliminate splatbooks in order to close the gap between casters and non-casters, but that doesn't succeed when the PHB itself is the source of some of the worst offenders.

While I think your goals were admirable, I'm just not convinced that you've achieved them.

ericgrau

2014-03-06, 11:46 AM

I don't think this does much for balance. Actually allowing material by permission does more for that than anything. I do think it could make things more fun for non-casters. Which is all that really matters. Yet without going over the top and ruining the system like a lot of "fixes" do. If anything it's nice that it does as little as it does, and in a similar way to most classes so a screwup is less likely to create a big disparity between players.

I think the rogue got shafted a bit even with the ability to sneak attack everything. At least throw him some feats I think.
The bard could probably get just a little of something.
For multiclassing and avoiding dip abuse, when do the ability score bumps kick in?

Feats are fun and giving a lot out to most classes could get interesting. But I think the fighter gets too many. There is a point where you're just beating a dead horse and the extras will either be useless or comboriffic broken... and comboriffic probably won't get permission. When everyone gets feats the fighter becomes less unique in this system. Perhaps ditch the class entirely or give him something else related to feats besides moar. For example at level 8 in a mostly core environment you could say any feat that directly gives a +4 gives a +6 instead. By then you'll be all-in and may want to grab more of such feats rather than leaving the moment you hit level 9.

ace rooster

2014-03-06, 01:08 PM

The biggest problem mundanes have is wizards going "die", and not having time to do anything about it. Fighter 101 should say, "when the guy in the dress starts waving his hands, take cover". My fix is to increase casting times. a standard action spell now takes a full round, (with a concentration check to move at the same time) and actually fires at the start of your next turn. A quickened spell is now a move action. Fighters and the like now have a chance to react to casters, and counterspelling works better.

Stella

2014-03-06, 08:39 PM

Here's my concern, in several nutshells.

Nutshell the first: More skills and feats do not, and will not, put non-casters on an equal playing field with casters, even when casters are limited to PHB only. As you point out, "Tier I casters are still Tier I casters!" And what makes a Tier 1 or Tier 2 isn't just access to game-breaking abilities. It's versatility, it's having options for every scenario. And that's something that no amount of feats or skills will make up for with regard to non-casters. A caster can fly, can teleport, can speak any language and to anybody, (including but not limited to animals, plants, corpses, and deities) can see the unseen and in the deepest darkness. They can summon immensely powerful beings, can create elemental conflagrations and can alter their own forms to be just as good as the non-casters at anything the non-casters attempt. This is what makes a class Tier 1 or Tier 2. Your changes, while helpful, don't bridge this gap.My changes don't eliminate this possibility, but they do give the non-casting classes a much greater chance to contribute.

Nutshell the second: Some classes are poorly designed to begin with. Monk, for example, misses out on a lot, and giving him more skills and HD doesn't make up for that. Paladin, despite your claims of wanting to make classes less MAD, is still extremely MAD; your proposal hasn't altered that. You haven't actually changed how the classes work that causes them to be considered "weaker" than Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes; you've simply given them more HD, more feats, more numbers. That doesn't address the underlying problem.

The intent was to provide the lower tier classes with options. Having options is a huge part of the Tier battle, with casters being placed at the top due to their spells. By both increasing the options of the lower tier classes by increasing their skills and their feats, and reducing the options of the higher tier classes by eliminating their access to the various splatbook love, a hopeful medium is achieved.

Nutshell the third: As others have mentioned, limiting the splatbooks doesn't actually help all that much. First off, while there are "caster-focused" splatbooks, there are virtually no caster-excluding splatbooks; any splatbook that benefits non-casters almost inevitably has caster material in it.I believe that you have stated my point precisely.

Second, as others have mentioned, some of the most game-breaking caster material is in the PHB; casters don't need the splatbooks to crack a DM's plans wide open or make the non-casters feel redundant. If anything, the splatbooks create a distraction - there are plenty of cool-sounding but ultimately underpowered spells in splatbooks that might keep a caster from choosing the ones that really would ruin the experience.
You said that you wanted to give the martials more feats and skill points to increase their versatility and flexibility. You've given them the feats and skill points, but I don't see the predicted increase in versatility. You said that you wanted to eliminate some MAD. I haven't seen that either. You said that you wanted to eliminate splatbooks in order to close the gap between casters and non-casters, but that doesn't succeed when the PHB itself is the source of some of the worst offenders.

While I think your goals were admirable, I'm just not convinced that you've achieved them.Well, you deny that these changes allow for increased versatility. That is interesting, given that adding more feats and more skill points to the non-casting classes can't rationally be described as being less versatile.

Stella

2014-03-06, 09:32 PM

I think the rogue got shafted a bit even with the ability to sneak attack everything. At least throw him some feats I think.
The bard could probably get just a little of something.
For multiclassing and avoiding dip abuse, when do the ability score bumps kick in?
The Rogue has a pile of skills, and all other non-casters pick up more skills.

Vhaidara

2014-03-06, 09:36 PM

OldTrees1

2014-03-06, 09:36 PM

eggynack

2014-03-06, 09:43 PM

I don't really understand why you're worrying so much about caster access to splat books. Why not just, y'know, let some classes have more books than others. Seems pretty simple. It's a little awkward, but it's better than playing the "Who benefits more from splat books" game.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-03-06, 09:50 PM

The core-verses-non-core issue is that casters get a massive pile of good stuff right in the PHB-- polymorph, planar ally/binding, teleport, rope trick, scrying, astral projection... I don't think there's a single classic caster campaign-breaker that can't be done straight out of core.

Meanwhile, there are, what, a dozen decent feats for mundanes, not counting useless pre-reqs? And a lot of those aren't going to be useful for a given character, since you're not likely to have the stats for both archery and melee. Your fighter will run out of feats to take. Meanwhile, good mundane options are incredibly scattered. A Knowledge Devotion here, a Swift Hunter there...

EDIT: In any case, leaving the core-only issue aside... more skill points are nice, but the benefits are counterbalanced by the tiny point buy. ("+1 to two stats" does nothing to counter that).

More feats are nice (assuming you've got the book access to find good feats), but mostly to get your schtick online at low-levels-- as you get higher and higher, you'll find that you've finished all the chains that matter, and there just isn't anything you care about anymore.

Major issues with classes are still there-- The Druid can still use Natural Spell. The Monk and Paladin still need good scores in (almost) every stat. Ranger/Paladin casting is still crap. The Fighter still has nothing to do out-of-combat. And so on.

ericgrau

2014-03-06, 10:15 PM

The Rogue has a pile of skills, and all other non-casters pick up more skills.
So relative to other classes, he gains nothing for feats or skills and can sneak attack a few more things. What's more the one thing he was special at, most classes are now ok at. +2 skill points for him does a lot less than what it does for others. Poor rogue.

While limiting splatbooks might not do a lot for balance, accepting things from them on a case by case basis does. So I think people here are misunderstanding the impact of that out of a fear that you're taking away the players' toys without accomplishing anything (neither concern is true).

Vhaidara

2014-03-06, 10:22 PM

Oh, and I'd forgotten about that: your point buy is terrible.

Mundanes need more stats. Fundamentally, a fighter needs at least 2 16+stats (Str and Con) with a decent Dex, and you don't want to dump mentals or else you're hideously vulnerable to ability damage.

Casters, meanwhile, want casting stat 18. And maybe a decent Con.

With this point buy, you'd see mundanes with a bunch of 14s, and then a wizard with 18 Int, 14 Con, and then 8s in everything else.

Red Fel

2014-03-06, 11:00 PM

Well, you deny that these changes allow for increased versatility. That is interesting, given that adding more feats and more skill points to the non-casting classes can't rationally be described as being less versatile.

The short version: That versatility is an illusion.

If I tell you that you have your choice of dessert, and your choice is between a cheesecake, a chocolate brownie, or a fruit cup, you have a choice. A substantial one, actually - pastry or fruit, chocolate or non-chocolate, pretty solid spread there.

If instead I tell you that you have your choice of dessert, and your choice is between a chocolate fudge brownie and a triple chocolate brownie, your choice is mostly insubstantial. (Admittedly, to a chocolate gourmand like myself, there's a substantial difference between "chocolate fudge" and "triple chocolate," but that's not true for most people.) Your choice is an illusion. You get a chocolate brownie, or a chocolate brownie.

Casters have true versatility. They can do anything.

Have you looked at non-caster feats? I mean, really looked? Not many substantially change how a melee plays. They don't add many new options to gameplay. Fighter feats let you hit harder, or more times, or with a different skill roll. Rogue feats may let your Rogue levels stack with other classes for SA purposes. Monk feats give you new uses for Stunning Fist. That's not a real, substantial choice.

Your position appears to be that more feats, more skills, more numbers on the identical class chassis will somehow make the class more versatile. I simply don't see evidence to support that statement. Making a Fighter a better Fighter won't let him do a fraction of the things a Tier 1 or 2 character can do, in or out of combat.

Give your non-casters Diplomacy and Bluff, and your casters will use Glibness. Give them Hide and Move Silently, and your casters will use Silence and Invisibility. Give them feats that add to their damage output, and your casters will still be able to outperform them in melee. You're not changing how the class is played, and you're not giving them options that compare with what a caster can do.

You're giving them a second choice of chocolate brownie.

OldTrees1

2014-03-06, 11:06 PM

Have you looked at non-caster feats? I mean, really looked? Not many substantially change how a melee plays. They don't add many new options to gameplay. Fighter feats let you hit harder, or more times, or with a different skill roll. Rogue feats may let your Rogue levels stack with other classes for SA purposes. Monk feats give you new uses for Stunning Fist. That's not a real, substantial choice.

Outside of Core this improves significantly. It is still far behind caster options but you get options like "Disable target" or "Reposition target" or "Shrug off a condition". (Yes the last one is a feat from ToB)

There still are not enough good options for the 44 feats the OP's fighters get but it is closer. Kinda like the choice between a Chocolate bar, Chocolate cake, Chocolate pudding or a Chocolate brownie.

That was just the fighter feats. The extra 6 non fighter feats can be spent on things like Flight.

Madeiner

2014-03-06, 11:17 PM

I've thought about this a few times already..

I still think the fastest way to balance is:

- enforce RAI. Awaken on druids? Come on.
- remove a select number of spells (less than 10 in PHB) from the game
- T1 and T2 casters spells need very expensive focuses, especially on the best spells.
- strictly enforce WBL (or use another metric for the next step)

If you can cast fireball with no focus, but need a 2000 gp focus for teleport,10k gp one for polymorph and a 6k gp one for black tentacles, you still have agency to choose SOME of those. But you can't have them all.

Higher focus costs goes to spells that replicate other classes abilities, or generally the most powerful ones.
Problem fixed for me.

Yeah, and gate requires a 50k gp focus or just ban it.

eggynack

2014-03-06, 11:27 PM

There still are not enough good options for the 44 feats the OP's fighters get but it is closer.
I think there must be. There're just so many good choices out there, especially when you include ToB choices. Fighters are actually pretty feat starved on occasion, just because of the fact that their feats are all in ridiculous chains.

- enforce RAI.
Enforcing RAI doesn't really hurt casters much. Much of their best stuff uses completely intentional parts of the game. Sure, sometimes you combine aspect of the wolf with awaken, ghost companion, or even reduce animal, and that was almost certainly not intentional, but most of the time you're casting entangle, friendly fire, or control winds, and using these tools exactly as they were meant to be used.

- strictly enforce WBL
Casters work far better with no WBL than non-casters. The focus thing helps with that somewhat, but mundane guys need these items just to keep up.

Stella

2014-03-07, 12:08 AM

Your intent was clear and matches the results this would create. However you have overestimated the feats worth taking.

So at low level this fighter will be taking:
Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Knock-down(not a Ftr feat), Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Knockback, Shock Trooper, Stand Still(not a Ftr feat)
So that is 7 Ftr feats (with prereqs up to BAB +6). A 6th level Ftr would have
12 Ftr feats (The normal 4 doubled to 8 plus 1 for each of the 4 levels above 2nd).
So more feats will need to be made to sate this fighter's thirst.Yes? I think you've made my point for me. The entire point is that the martial classes will be able to enjoy the benefits of more than one feat chain which as it stands now require a high level to achieve.

Plus, the martial classes get to add some utility via the increased skills. It isn't huge, but it is a bonus which isn't currently enjoyed.

Tome of Battle is more advantageous to Martial characters than to casters.Tomb of Battles isn't Core. It does tip the odds, but it isn't a solution. I'm looking for a Core solution.

OldTrees1

2014-03-07, 12:14 AM

I think there must be. There're just so many good choices out there, especially when you include ToB choices. Fighters are actually pretty feat starved on occasion, just because of the fact that their feats are all in ridiculous chains.

44 feats at least as good as Improved Trip? 29 of which need to be Fighter bonus feats? Yeah I am not seeing that and I like Fighters.

Yes? I think you've made my point for me. The entire point is that the martial classes will be able to enjoy the benefits of more than one feat chain which as it stands now require a high level to achieve.

Plus, the martial classes get to add some utility via the increased skills. It isn't huge, but it is a bonus which isn't currently enjoyed.

Tomb of Battles isn't Core. It does tip the odds, but it isn't a solution. I'm looking for a Core solution.

I mostly agree with you, except where I think you are hampering yourself or not going far enough (you will note I included non core feats).

Your fix will give martial classes the benefits of multiple combat styles. But there are not enough good feats in core (or even outside of core) to satisfy this fighter fix. So part of this fix would be printing more good feats.

ToB and Complete Warrior were examples of splatbooks that help single classed Fighters* more than they help Casters. By limiting martial characters to core feats, you cripple your fighter fix.

*I am not suggesting replacing Fighter

eggynack

2014-03-07, 01:10 AM

44 feats at least as good as Improved Trip? 29 of which need to be Fighter bonus feats? Yeah I am not seeing that and I like Fighters.
Hmm, probably not as good as improved trip, but you can go pretty deep without falling below reasonably good quality feats. I should probably make up a speed-list, and see where it takes me. I'm just listing arbitrarily, and mostly from memory, so this is just a list rather than a build. I'm also not sure how many of these are fighter feats, but it's probably better to just go back and correct all of this stuff later. Well, here it goes.

Combat expertise
Improved trip
Knock-down
Power attack
Improved bull rush
Shock trooper
Stand still
Robilar's gambit
Dodge
Karmic strike
EWP: spiked chain
Blind-fight
Mage slayer
Pierce magical concealment
Pierce magical protection
Imperious Command
Dungeoncrasher I
Dungeoncrasher II (Not feats, but close enough)
Aberration blood
Inhuman reach
Leap attack
Headlong rush
Battle jump
Knockback
Evasive reflexes
Mobility
Elusive target
Martial study (Not sure what for specifically yet.)
Martial stance (thicket of blades)
Improved disarm
Cleave

Yeah, this list is definitely going in a downhill direction. I'm open to suggestions, but you're probably correct that 44 feats, most of them constrained, is too much. I can't even imagine putting such a list together in a core only game.

OldTrees1

2014-03-07, 01:28 AM

Hmm, probably not as good as improved trip, but you can go pretty deep without falling below reasonably good quality feats. I should probably make up a speed-list, and see where it takes me. I'm just listing arbitrarily, and mostly from memory, so this is just a list rather than a build. I'm also not sure how many of these are fighter feats, but it's probably better to just go back and correct all of this stuff later. Well, here it goes.

Yeah, this list is definitely going in a downhill direction. I'm open to suggestions, but you're probably correct that 44 feats, most of them constrained, is too much. I can't even imagine putting such a list together in a core only game.

You got more than I expected. If we had just twice as many (31x2=62) good feats, then I think the 44 feat Fighter class would be satisfied and there would be reasonable, though limited, variety between high level fighters.

10 of those feats listed are core fighter feats.
0 are core non fighter feats.
So if the OP's fighter is constrained to good core only feats (and no flaws):
They start with 30% of those 10 feats
They have all 10 feats by 4th level. So the 5th level fighter will have to select a poor feat rather than a good feat.

We need more good feats to be made as part of this balance attempt.

eggynack

2014-03-07, 01:40 AM

You got more than I expected. If we had just twice as many (31x2=62) good feats, then I think the 44 feat Fighter class would be satisfied and there would be reasonable, though limited, variety between high level fighters.
Yeah, I had to do more research than I expected to get even that far, and a couple of the listed things (elusive target, as well as the improved disarm and cleave thing at the end, and likely at least one of the power attack multipliers) aren't really feats I'd stick on an ordinary fighter. I mean, I could always bite the bullet and toss infinite feats down the hole that is weapon supremacy, but at that point any claim I once had to high optimization honor would be forfeit, or something like that. Very dramatic stuff. One possibility is adding in the whole TWF/double hit/jack b. quick deal, and that'd help, but it's not expanding the list that much, especially because it's hard to justify taking anything beyond straight TWF in the TWF line. Improved initiative could also be justified, potentially.

So, in conclusion, either less feats granted, or more feats listed, and probably both, is necessary. Obviously, this not being limited to core is also necessary. I mean, I'm looking at the list of bonus fighter feats right now, and there's only 47 of them there. It just doesn't math out on any level. I mean, the OP states that players can ask the DM for permission for out of core stuff if they're not casters, but you're asking for permission for a couple dozen things at least, and that just sounds horrifically onerous.

Edit: Tossing on an archery build is also justifiable, I think. That could actually maybe hit 44. There's almost no way that all 20th level fighters don't end up looking identical though.

ericgrau

2014-03-07, 02:34 AM

If you can't find 100 good feats of any kind you aren't looking hard enough. You just don't know them off the top of your head. I've been heavily feat starved in 1 feat per level games. I still think it's a bit overboard one way or the other. You'll need a lot of searching to pull it off, and those that do will be 10 times stronger than those that pick a bunch of random feats... yet only in certain ways. I don't like things that are so swingy in power depending on the user and gaming group. In one group it could shatter balance in half for being OP, in another "it's still not a caster", in another the player has no idea what he's doing and gets nothing more from it.

But more likely it'll end up as a dip class. Fighter levels = feats I need / X then done. And let's say a feat or multiple feats have a level or BAB requirement. That's the level you take a fighter level, then go back to your real class.

Or if it's mostly core with only a few splatbook feats it'll run out right away. You take what you need for your build and then not another level.

OldTrees1

2014-03-07, 02:42 AM

If you can't find 100 good feats of any kind you aren't looking hard enough. You just don't know them off the top of your head. I've been heavily feat starved in 1 feat per level games. I still think it's a bit overboard one way or the other. You'll need a lot of searching to pull it off, and those that do will be 10 times stronger than those that pick a bunch of random feats... yet only in certain ways. I don't like things that are so swingy in power depending on the user and gaming group. In one group it could shatter balance in half for being OP, in another "it's still not a caster", in another the player has no idea what he's doing and gets nothing more from it.

But more likely it'll end up as a dip class. Fighter levels = feats I need / X then done.

I challenge you to list 50 that are as strong or stronger than Improved Trip and are beneficial to a fighter.
If you can meet that challenge then try to make the 100 you claim are so easy to find.

Warning: If you consider the Weapon Focus line for that list, your standards are way too low.

eggynack

2014-03-07, 02:43 AM

If you can't find 100 good feats of any kind you aren't looking hard enough. You just don't know them off the top of your head. I've been heavily feat starved in 1 feat per level games. I still think it's a bit overboard one way or the other. You'll need a lot of searching to pull it off, and those that do will be 10 times stronger than those that pick a bunch of random feats... yet only in certain ways. I don't like things that are so swingy in power depending on the user and gaming group. In one group it could shatter balance in half for being OP, in another "it's still not a caster", in another the player has no idea what he's doing and gets nothing more from it.

So, what would you add to get the list to 44? It might be worth removing a couple of the worst feats from the list as well, especially if you can pull off 100 of these. I mean, I guess you could pick up more martial study/martial stance, and fill out the list some that way, but I feel like I was going pretty deep by the end there. Either way, the specific degree to which we can come up with this many feats after analysis is somewhat pointless. The fact that finishing such a list at all is this difficult, and requires so much digging, means that there are just too many slots. When you need to have substantial system mastery just to fill all of your slots with good choices, well, it's the VoP exalted feat problem all over again.

ericgrau

2014-03-07, 02:50 AM

I've played with a feat per level and still wishing I had a lot more. I'm not looking through 30 splatbooks, but given a few hours you'll easily find 100, if not 300.

eggynack

2014-03-07, 02:54 AM

I've played with a feat per level and still wishing I had a lot more. I'm not looking through 30 splatbooks, but given a few hours you'll easily find 100, if not 300.
A feat per level is significantly less than what is being offered here, and many of the feats are fighter bonus feats, which is a further limitation. If I only had one feat each level to worry about, I would already be done. The hard part is always those last ten or so, and you've given little proof that those last few feats can find a use.

OldTrees1

2014-03-07, 02:54 AM

I've played with a feat per level and still wishing I had a lot more. I'm not looking through 30 splatbooks, but given a few hours you'll easily find 100, if not 300.

300 Serious? You just lost all your credibility. You are obviously pulling numbers out of the air and hyperbole rather than out of examination and analysis.

Red Fel

2014-03-07, 09:22 AM

I challenge you to list 50 that are as strong or stronger than Improved Trip and are beneficial to a fighter.
If you can meet that challenge then try to make the 100 you claim are so easy to find.

Warning: If you consider the Weapon Focus line for that list, your standards are way too low.

Does taking Martial Study 50 times count? Maybe some Devotion feats - you can take those multiple times to get extra uses without requiring TU, right? Too bad they don't count as Fighter Bonus Feats...

Vhaidara

2014-03-07, 10:25 AM

Does taking Martial Study 50 times count? Maybe some Devotion feats - you can take those multiple times to get extra uses without requiring TU, right? Too bad they don't count as Fighter Bonus Feats...

There's an idea : allow Martial Study/Stance, and make Fighter a crappy initiator!

eggynack

2014-03-07, 10:26 AM

Does taking Martial Study 50 times count?
Martial study can only be taken three times, so no. Martial stance isn't limited in that fashion, however. I feel like you'd start experiencing diminishing returns somewhere long before taking 50 of either though.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-03-07, 10:50 AM

Yes? I think you've made my point for me. The entire point is that the martial classes will be able to enjoy the benefits of more than one feat chain which as it stands now require a high level to achieve.
I think he misinterpreted. He came up with literally half as many feats as he needed, and to do that he needed to go outside core. There are 48 total fighter bonus feats in the PHB, and on a 25 point buy you're not going to be able to qualify for all of them.

Plus, the martial classes get to add some utility via the increased skills. It isn't huge, but it is a bonus which isn't currently enjoyed.
4+Int skill points isn't great (especially when low point buy means you'll probably by eating an Int penalty as a martial type), and their skill lists still stink. A fighter with every skill at full ranks still can't do very much.

OldTrees1

2014-03-07, 11:15 AM

Maybe some Devotion feats - you can take those multiple times to get extra uses without requiring TU, right? Too bad they don't count as Fighter Bonus Feats...

Good point. So the 15 non fighter bonus feats can be sated with Devotion feats. Although the 15 non fighter bonus feats were never really a problem to fill. Although I question if those feats are worth it with Turn Undead. Death and Travel sounds reasonable at 1 daily use per feat but only up to once per encounter.

Rejusu

2014-03-07, 11:36 AM

The intent was to provide the lower tier classes with options. Having options is a huge part of the Tier battle, with casters being placed at the top due to their spells. By both increasing the options of the lower tier classes by increasing their skills and their feats, and reducing the options of the higher tier classes by eliminating their access to the various splatbook love, a hopeful medium is achieved.

But what you don't seem to understand is that simply giving them more choices does not give them more options if you limit what they can choose. It's like saying you're giving them more options when it comes to ice cream by giving them more scoops while limiting them to only vanilla.

Also another problem is that you've misunderstood what the tier system is based on. You're approaching this as if it's based on character building options (hence your strategy of increasing the resources available to lower tier classes), it's not though. It's the options they have available for solving encounters. In other words: versatility. And while feats and skills can add to those options the bulk of it comes from class features.

You're looking at it purely numerically as if just adding bigger numbers can solve that gap. But it isn't about how many things you have, it's about what you can do with them. Except comparing feats to spells doesn't work. A feat will allow you to at most do one (maybe two) new things or more often than not they'll just provide an improvement to something you can do already.

Take spells like alter self and polymorph for example, think about how many options just one of those spells opens up. And they're both in the PHB to boot.

The intent was to provide the lower tier classes with options.

No one is questioning your intent, what's being questioned is whether your methods produce the results you intend. And I don't believe they do.

Well, you deny that these changes allow for increased versatility. That is interesting, given that adding more feats and more skill points to the non-casting classes can't rationally be described as being less versatile.

On its own no. But this is a disingenuous counter argument because you say this like it's the only change you've proposed. If all you were doing is adding more feats and skill points that could not rationally be described as making them less versatile. But that's not all you're doing is it? You're cutting off splatbook access. And doing that can't rationally be described as making them more versatile. Nearly all the best options for non casters come from splatbooks. Things like the shock trooper feat, martial study, spirit totem barbarians.

There are hardly any worthwhile fighter bonus feats in core, even without extra feats a core only fighter is scraping the bottom of the barrel before long. Meanwhile nearly all the best spells are in core. As has already been pointed out to you several times, yes casters lose some of their options when limited to core. But non tier 1/2 classes lose so much more it's not even funny.

Put it this way: for tier one/two splatbooks represent a couple of fingers off each hand. It's not ideal but it's not crippling. For everyone else splatbooks represent a hand at the very least, and two hands and both feet. This is why you're seeing a lot of objections to the banning of splatbooks. It's not even close to a fair trade off.

Tomb of Battles isn't Core. It does tip the odds, but it isn't a solution. I'm looking for a Core solution.

Unless you're prepared to almost completely rewrite the PHB then you're out of luck because you won't find one. As other people have already mentioned core is probably the most poorly balanced part of 3.5 (ever wonder why nearly all the tier one classes are in the PHB?). There isn't any quick fixes to it other than surgically removing it.

Look I appreciate what you're trying to do but I'm not sure why you're defending your solution so strongly. You've already admitted you're not very good at character optimisation. I'm not sure how you expect to come up with a great solution when you don't fully understand the problem. That's not to say you can't or shouldn't try, but you should be more receptive to criticism on it. Right now you're being a bit defensive as if you believe your solution is already pretty solid, when as myself and many others have pointed out it really isn't.

hemming

2014-03-07, 12:06 PM

I think it is a lot easier to deal with trying to keep lower tier PCs relevant in a specific party/game than trying to seek a systematic solution to balancing classes

It is still a tremendous challenge (varying by the tier and op level differences between the players) - but taking on the class system as a whole is a lot tougher!

I'm not saying classes can ever be fixed - or that it is even possible to keep your players all equally relevant to the game - but the DM has a lot of tools at their disposal to try and give everyone a chance to shine.

Lans

2014-03-07, 10:54 PM

Edit: Tossing on an archery build is also justifiable, I think. That could actually maybe hit 44. There's almost no way that all 20th level fighters don't end up looking identical though.

I think his intention was for that to happen.

I challenge you to list 50 that are as strong or stronger than Improved Trip and are beneficial to a fighter.
If you can meet that challenge then try to make the 100 you claim are so easy to find.

Warning: If you consider the Weapon Focus line for that list, your standards are way too low.

I think you should judge it more on how well 2 feats equals combat expertise and Improved trip

The fighter needs a way to ignore stat prereqs, which would open up the combat form feats at least

eggynack

2014-03-07, 11:03 PM

I think his intention was for that to happen.

That seems plausible enough, though it's still just way too many slots. I mean, far from providing the basis for a core only game, this would be a class that requires system knowledge spanning a lot of books just to scrounge up the right number of feats.

OldTrees1

2014-03-07, 11:11 PM

I think you should judge it more on how well 2 feats equals combat expertise and Improved trip

Fair enough. I was going to accept all prereqs of the good feats. (Elusive Target would make Dodge and Mobility count) However your way is better.

Magikeeper

2014-03-08, 12:37 AM

Hrm... good feats.

I'm going to include that previous list as a starting point. Since battle jump is on the list I'll have to avoid using the other regional feats. My additions start after 'cleave'. Let's go!

Combat expertise
Improved trip
Knock-down (Is this Knock-Back?)
Power attack
Improved bull rush
Shock trooper
Stand still
Robilar's gambit
Dodge
Karmic strike
EWP: spiked chain
Blind-fight
Mage slayer
Pierce magical concealment
Pierce magical protection
Imperious Command
Dungeoncrasher I
Dungeoncrasher II (Not feats, but close enough)
Aberration blood
Inhuman reach
Leap attack
Headlong rush
Battle jump
Knockback
Evasive reflexes
Mobility
Elusive target
Martial study (Not sure what for specifically yet.)
Martial stance (thicket of blades)
Improved disarm
Cleave
Great Cleave
Improved Toughness
Endurance (pre-req)
Steadfast Determination
Planar Touchstone: Catalogs of Enlightenment: Pride Domain.
Good Karma
Tempting Fate
Leap of the Heavens
Leadership
Improved Sunder (Pre-req)
Combat Brute
Combat Focus
Combat Awareness
Combat Stability
Combat Strike
Improved Initiative (really, this one is core guys. :P)
Power Lunge (I need to remember this one on the Charger thread.)
Knowledge Devotion
Defensive Sweep
Combat Panache
Combat Acrobat
Midnight dodge (+1 simultaneous dodge target)
Improved unarmed strike (pre-req)
Snap Kick
Defensive throw
Quick Draw
Deflect Arrows
Snatch Arrows
Grapple Block (Despite name, lets you reactively disarm)
Snatch Weapon
Improved Grapple
Spring Attack
Whirlwind Attack?
Acrobatic Strike? (Easy +4 to hit?)
Iron will (Pre-req)
Lady's Gambit (Dragon Compendium)
Close-Quarters fighting (good, but very specific)
Vault (Dragon Compendium)
Any Good Ancestor feat (Tireless, Silver Tongue, just pick one [Using dragon magazine update to OA])

The above list ignores offensive* unarmed combat feats and all archery feats. Weapon Supremacy isn't bad either even if you do need to take a lot of crappy feats for it.

The list also misses the Vile feats (Elder Evils has some really nice ones), a couple of okay exalted feats, the many nice spelltouched feats, the abyssal heritor feats, or taking the martial adept feats enough times to qualify for the better BoNS tactical feats. I think breaking 100 feats is doable.

*I assumed you could use gloves of master strategist / storing to free-action 'sheathe' your two-hander. That way you might even be able to use grapple block to stop counter attacks after shocktrooping. Quick draw still lets you pull out the right weapon to start sheathing/unsheathing with the glove since it only holds one thing at a time.

OldTrees1

2014-03-08, 12:57 AM

Hrm... good feats.

I'm going to include that previous list as a starting point. Since battle jump is on the list I'll have to avoid using the other regional feats. My additions start after 'cleave'. Let's go!

Great Cleave
Improved Toughness
Good Karma
Tempting Fate
Leap of the Heavens
Combat Stability
Combat Strike
Power Lunge
Midnight dodge
Defensive throw
Snatch Arrows
Grapple Block
Snatch Weapon
Spring Attack
Whirlwind Attack
Acrobatic Strike
Close-Quarters fighting (good, but very specific)
Vault

These are the additions* I would not count. (about 50% of the ones you added) I am not convinced to find you credible.

I also note there was some serious redundancy on that list and anti-synergy (Rhetorical Question: Are you going to be unarmed or wielding the spiked chain during the opponent's turn? Either way turns off several feats)

*I would not have counted Cleave either.

Another thing to consider (not a criticism against you, this is more for the OP) is depth vs breadth. In this list of feats available there is too much breadth and not enough depth. While this is not a problem at low levels, at higher levels it means you will be a jack of all trades or even more mediocre. The new fighter will need new feats that are designed for higher level play.

eggynack

2014-03-08, 01:02 AM

I'd probably also ditch knowledge devotion. Fighters don't really have the list necessary to make that worthwhile. As for cleave, yeah, I was kinda stretching by that point. It's decent though, if not really good.

OldTrees1

2014-03-08, 01:05 AM

Magikeeper

2014-03-08, 03:54 AM

...I'm just going to note that I'd have come up with most of the first 30 on my own. I did forget about evasive reflexes.

On unarmed stuff: At that point we're far beyond 44. Does redundancy and anti-synergy matter? Was not one of your points that all fighter builds would look the same? Depending on campaign, grapple block could work wonders and be rather fun to use. It's also a bit different from the other way of defending yourself. It's not something I'd rush to normally, no. But if you have two ways to do a thing one of them is likely better in more situations than the other.

Midnight dodge: This can take the place of dodge and is basically the same feat but with incarnum synergy. Which.. doesn't mean much.. wait! You could take Shape Soulmeld. In which case midnight dodge is pretty much strictly better than regular dodge. I admit that taking both dodges works much better in heavy counter attack builds, which is more maneuver heavy than this fighter class can pull off. Overvalued that benefit due to nostalgia, I suppose.

You count battle jump, but not leap of the heavens. How are you pulling off x2 DC battle jumps?

Fighters can get every knowledge skill with a spelltouched feat. There are other feats that grant every knowledge skill as well. Getting every knowledge skill is its own reward in some groups, so that doesn't really add a much of a feat tax to knowledge devotion.

-----

I could discuss a few other of those feats, but it doesn't matter. Even dumping all of those and cleave puts us at 51 feats. That's before adding archery, any of the spelltouched stuff, any of the (elder evils) vile feats, item familiar, etc. It may not be 100 but I think the original goal of 60 is clearly reachable.

----------

I agree on the breadth vs depth issue (I just wanted to have a go at the feat challenge). Although, you could just have your leadership cohort be a wizard and call it a day. :P

ace rooster

2014-03-08, 12:06 PM

The easiest way to give more feats and skill points (and more hit points and better saves) is just to give more hit dice. In some sense it is the ultimate "give more of the same" fix, and demonstrates why such a fix can't work. A level 26 fighter standing next to a level 13 wizard is shut down just as easily by 5ft step and force cage as a level 1 fighter, without build tricks to deal with that specifically.

In my opinion any fix has to start with making martial combat a viable option for combat next to spellcasting, which outside of ToB it just isn't (With ToB basically giving it martial spellcasting). No matter how hard you hit, spellcasters will always have options for shutting you down hard as a standard action and your only defence is kill it before it gets a chance. As I said before, action economy stuff works, but I am sure there are other ways.

OldTrees1

2014-03-08, 01:51 PM

On unarmed stuff: At that point we're far beyond 44. Does redundancy and anti-synergy matter? Was not one of your points that all fighter builds would look the same? Depending on campaign, grapple block could work wonders and be rather fun to use. It's also a bit different from the other way of defending yourself. It's not something I'd rush to normally, no. But if you have two ways to do a thing one of them is likely better in more situations than the other.
It is 52 by my count. 51 after Cleave is removed. Not that far beyond 44.
Fighter builds should not all look the same. At 51 feats we will see lots of fighters with very similar lists. To add insult to injury those lists will have lots of redundancy in them.

Grapple Block causes the opponent to provoke an AoO from you and then restricts that AoO to a specific type of attack. Karmic Strike and/or Robilar's Gambit render that feat obsolete.

Midnight dodge: This can take the place of dodge and is basically the same feat but with incarnum synergy. Which.. doesn't mean much.. wait! You could take Shape Soulmeld. In which case midnight dodge is pretty much strictly better than regular dodge. I admit that taking both dodges works much better in heavy counter attack builds, which is more maneuver heavy than this fighter class can pull off. Overvalued that benefit due to nostalgia, I suppose.
I already counted dodge on the list. Replacing it with Midnight Dodge makes sense, having both doesn't.
Shape Soulmeld is a good feat to add to the list. However, as Devotion feats have shown, the real issues are finding enough Fighter feats and making the list work together competently at 20th level.

You count battle jump, but not leap of the heavens. How are you pulling off x2 DC battle jumps?
I counted the regional feat since I knew that it could be replaced by a worthy regional feat.

Fighters can get every knowledge skill with a spelltouched feat. There are other feats that grant every knowledge skill as well. Getting every knowledge skill is its own reward in some groups, so that doesn't really add a much of a feat tax to knowledge devotion.
Agreed.

I agree on the breadth vs depth issue (I just wanted to have a go at the feat challenge). Although, you could just have your leadership cohort be a wizard and call it a day. :P

I could discuss a few other of those feats, but it doesn't matter. Even dumping all of those and cleave puts us at 51 feats. That's before adding archery, any of the spelltouched stuff, any of the (elder evils) vile feats, item familiar, etc. It may not be 100 but I think the original goal of 60 is clearly reachable.
That I will concede. Now that we can reach Total Feats (44<60). Can we reach Fighter Feats (27<40)?

Combat expertise
Improved trip
Power attack
Improved bull rush
Shock trooper
Robilar's gambit
Dodge
EWP: spiked chain
Blind-fight
Dungeoncrasher I
Dungeoncrasher II (Not feats, but close enough)
Knockback
Mobility
Martial study
Martial study
Martial study
Martial stance (thicket of blades)
Improved disarm
Improved Sunder (Pre-req)
Combat Brute
Combat Focus
Combat Awareness
Improved Initiative (really, this one is core guys. :P)
Defensive Sweep
Combat Panache
Combat Acrobat
Improved unarmed strike (pre-req)
Snap Kick
Quick Draw
Deflect Arrows
Improved Grapple

9 more good Fighter feats to go.

The easiest way to give more feats and skill points (and more hit points and better saves) is just to give more hit dice. In some sense it is the ultimate "give more of the same" fix, and demonstrates why such a fix can't work. A level 26 fighter standing next to a level 13 wizard is shut down just as easily by 5ft step and force cage as a level 1 fighter, without build tricks to deal with that specifically.
Bad example. A level 10 Fighter no longer vulnerable to 5ft steps.

You are right that the proposed fixes have a ceiling of Tier 3 (after adding more feats). So while it would balance the majority of classes, Tiers 1 & 2 would still not be balanced relative to the other classes.

ericgrau

2014-03-08, 04:10 PM

300 Serious? You just lost all your credibility. You are obviously pulling numbers out of the air and hyperbole rather than out of examination and analysis.
It's more that when people adamantly demand 15 hours of my time (which is probably an understatement if anything) before they'll believe me I tend not to respond nor take them seriously. Especially when it's not even for a character that I will play myself.

eggynack

2014-03-08, 04:14 PM

ericgrau

2014-03-08, 04:15 PM

There are other ways you can figure it out like estimating the number of feats there are in each book, which are thousands, and how many tend to get used in melee guides. Or look at all the unique builds out there that would use feats from each other if only the could.

It's still somewhat time consuming but at least many people here should have seen them before and noticed it. That's something everyone can know off the top of their head without spending hours nor anyone in the discussion purporting to have all of D&D memorized. I'm more dismissing demands that "you must give me 15 hours of your time right now or else you must have no clue what you're talking about." What I can remember off the top of my head is that myself and everyone can't even get half as many as they would want, and all kinds of builds keep having new and different feats with a dozen or so in each.

EDIT, but here's a refresher: https://www.google.com/#q=%22feat+progression%22+melee+build+site:www.gia ntitp.com&safe=off
Good way to steal more specific feats to list out if you're bored too.

Lans

2014-03-08, 04:18 PM

I

Combat expertise
Improved trip
Power attack
Improved bull rush
Shock trooper
Robilar's gambit
Dodge
EWP: spiked chain
Blind-fight
Dungeoncrasher I
Dungeoncrasher II (Not feats, but close enough)
Knockback
Mobility
Martial study
Martial study
Martial study
Martial stance (thicket of blades)
Improved disarm
Improved Sunder (Pre-req)
Combat Brute
Combat Focus
Combat Awareness
Improved Initiative (really, this one is core guys. :P)
Defensive Sweep
Combat Panache
Combat Acrobat
Improved unarmed strike (pre-req)
Snap Kick
Quick Draw
Deflect Arrows
Improved Grapple

9 more good Fighter feats to go.

Martial Stance for scent, Combat Reflexes, If your a halfling or Drow EWP Boomerang, Boomerang Daze, Richochet, the weapon spec line for a boomerang, for the +2 to DC, and ranged mastery for the DC boost and range bump. Add in ranged feats and brutal throw if applicable. Resolute and Overpowering attack ACFs

Thats off the top of my head

Good Karma
Tempting Fate
Combat Stability
Combat Strike
Power Lunge
Close-Quarters fighting (good, but very specific

These are the additions* I would not count. (about 50% of the ones you added) I am not convinced to find you credible.

Close-Quarters fighting is very good, Tempting Fate is at least situational, Good Karma can be good with expertise, Power Lung is a feat for 6+ damage is ok, Combat Strike is on par with rage for a round, and stability gives a hefty boost against combat tricks.

eggynack

2014-03-08, 04:22 PM

There are other ways you can figure it out like estimating the number of feats there are in each book and how many tend to get used in melee guides. There are thousands. Or look at all the unique builds out there that would use feats from eachother if only the could.

It's still somewhat time consuming but at least many people here should have seen them before and noticed it.
I don't really see the point in playing the game of estimates and averages. My feat list was pulled from pretty much all of the good fighter based builds I've seen, ranging from charging, to AoO tripping, to bullrush, to intimidation (really just one feat for that one), to mage killing. I've presented you with cold hard numbers, as have other people. If there's something wrong with those numbers, tell me what it is. If you can't tell me what it is, then you should probably skip the part where you arbitrarily tell me that the numbers are wrong. Let's just be clear here. I'm saying, "This list comprises every single good feat that a fighter should take." Your aim is to disprove that, if you care to.

Edit: Yeah, that list was definitely missing combat reflexes. I think I saw combat expertise, and just thought combat reflexes was already there or something. Nifty.

OldTrees1

2014-03-08, 04:45 PM

It's more that when people adamantly demand 15 hours of my time (which is probably an understatement if anything) before they'll believe me I tend not to respond nor take them seriously. Especially when it's not even for a character that I will play myself.
What I found incredible was that you were claiming there were 300 when there was not even evidence of 50 yet, much less 100. (Although evidence for 50 has been achieved now). Furthermore you expected us to take that claim on faith when prior evidence suggested against the claim. I did not demand you take 15hrs. I said that I was unwilling to be convinced merely by you claiming it was so without evidence. You demanded I act irrationally and believe you with blind faith. Sorry, but no.

So I will continue to treat you as not being credible until you stop making extraordinary claims without evidence.

Martial Stance for scent, Combat Reflexes, If your a halfling or Drow EWP Boomerang, Boomerang Daze, Richochet, the weapon spec line for a boomerang, for the +2 to DC, and ranged mastery for the DC boost and range bump. Add in ranged feats and brutal throw if applicable. Resolute and Overpowering attack ACFs

Thats off the top of my head
Martial Stance is limited to once correct? Otherwise that looks good.
Now to fix the excessive breadth vs adequate depth problem.

Close-Quarters fighting is very good, Tempting Fate is at least situational, Good Karma can be good with expertise, Power Lung is a feat for 6+ damage is ok, Combat Strike is on par with rage for a round, and stability gives a hefty boost against combat tricks.

I mistook CQF for the one that gave halves the size advantage of your opponent.
Good Karma has extremely limited uses per day. It takes too many feats to make it worth using combat expertise as anything more than a prerequisite.
Power Lunge grants the opponent an attack for a relatively tiny damage boost.
1 round of rage is not worth a feat. I believe the fair trade is 2 encounters of rage per feat.
Combat Stability is a +4 to combat maneuvers. Personally I think this is weaker than Improved Trip (+4 to Trip, deny the opponent an attack & gain an attack) however I was on the fence for that one.

Sam K

2014-03-08, 05:27 PM

The only way to balance mundane and magic in core is to make sure your players have extremely poor optimization skills. Then have them play whatever they feel like and have fun with that, because while the monkey grip dual bastard swords fighter will be suboptimal, so will the sorcerer that took magic missile as his first spell.

Beyond that, ToB.

Magikeeper

2014-03-08, 05:34 PM

Combat Stability is not +4, since there are at least 2 other combat focus feats worth taking. It will usually be +8. I don't think +4 would be worth it either.

Combat Strike is up to +14* to hit and damage on all attacks in a single round. I don't think the 1 round of rage comparison is apt.
*Assuming we skip out on the meh fast-healing feat.

Power Lunge.. hrm, I think the only time I've seen this used was with PCs wielding 50-60+ Str scores and pounce. That's a bit too specific to be called good, true.

Grapple Block causes the opponent to provoke an AoO from you and then restricts that AoO to a specific type of attack. Karmic Strike and/or Robilar's Gambit render that feat obsolete.

Although they are both generally more useful, Grapple Block is not entirely obsolete. It is the only one of the three that activates before you take damage.

-----------------------

On poor optimization skills: This is only a fix if you are lucky. The druid might pick the right companion, the wizard might just happen to like one or more of the really strong spells, etc. Or maybe the sorcerer is SO terrible at picking spells he ends up being completely useless. For all their power, sorcerers have an abysmally low optimization floor.

Extreme low op can still be very unbalanced, it just might not be reflective of the potential power of the classes that are being played.

OldTrees1

2014-03-08, 06:01 PM

Vhaidara

2014-03-08, 09:30 PM

Ok. At +8 it would be worthwhile as a feat. It would be one of the last feats but it would be worthwhile as a feat.

+14 attack and damage per attack in a single round per combat. I would not take that feat but I can see others that would. Thanks for the correction.

Actually, if you threw that onto an ubercharger, it gets doubled (I'm assuming a Valorous weapon) to an extra 28 damage per hit. From one feat, that's actually pretty solid. Especially since the point of an ubercharger is that whatever you hit dies.

Also, while you're all discussing the feats that would be taken with these changes, I remind you all that we are being given a 25 point buy. Have fun meeting prereqs with that.

eggynack

2014-03-08, 09:32 PM

Also, while you're all discussing the feats that would be taken with these changes, I remind you all that we are being given a 25 point buy. Have fun meeting prereqs with that.
Oh jeez, really? That's probably a no on imperious command at the very least.

Vhaidara

2014-03-08, 09:34 PM

Yeah, my earlier post (which got buried in this talk of feats) was calling out how much that hurts non-casters. As was discussed in a previous thread about giving everyone straight 18s, generally high stats are a significant factor in helping non-casters be relevant ever.

Also, I hate miserly point buys. I gave my first group a 30 point buy. And started them with 10s instead of 8s. So really, it was a 42 point buy. The casters were still infuriating (admittedly, my first group had 2 druids and 2 wizards, then a monk and a spellthief).

Lans

2014-03-08, 10:02 PM

Combat Strike is up to +14* to hit and damage on all attacks in a single round. I don't think the 1 round of rage comparison is apt.
*Assuming we skip out on the meh fast-healing feat.How are you getting +14? Ij only count 6 form feats

Although they are both generally more useful, Grapple Block is not entirely obsolete. It is the only one of the three that activates before you take damage.

That actually makes it pretty useful

What I found incredible was that you were claiming there were 300 when there was not even evidence of 50 yet, much less 100. (Although evidence for 50 has been achieved now). Furthermore you expected us to take that claim on faith when prior evidence suggested against the claim. I did not demand you take 15hrs. I said that I was unwilling to be convinced merely by you claiming it was so without evidence. You demanded I act irrationally and believe you with blind faith. Sorry, but no.

So I will continue to treat you as not being credible until you stop making extraordinary claims without evidence. Was it feats in general or fighter bonus feats. There are only 223 fighter bonus feats according to dndtools.

Martial Stance is limited to once correct? Otherwise that looks good.
Now to fix the excessive breadth vs adequate depth problem.
Martial stance doesn't have a limit, though you are limited to 3 schools with out a dip due to the limit on martial study.

I mistook CQF for the one that gave halves the size advantage of your opponent.
Good Karma has extremely limited uses per day. It takes too many feats to make it worth using combat expertise as anything more than a prerequisite.
Yeah, its more cool than useful

Power Lunge grants the opponent an attack for a relatively tiny damage boost. Its more than tiny, and you can negate the attack of opportunity with reach or negate some of the damage

1 round of rage is not worth a feat. I believe the fair trade is 2 encounters of rage per feat.

Its a bit better than mighty rage with a two hander, stacks, and can be used on more things like ranged combat.

Also, while you're all discussing the feats that would be taken with these changes, I remind you all that we are being given a 25 point buy. Have fun meeting prereqs with that.
Giving the fighter a way t o take feats with out needing the skill or ability prereqs would allieviate that

Duke of Urrel

2014-03-08, 10:26 PM

Vhaidara

2014-03-08, 10:42 PM

I don't know whether it's better to consider paladins and rangers to be spellcasters or non-spellcasters.

I don't favor the idea of increasing skill points for all non-spellcaster classes, except for the lowly commoner and expert NPC classes. I think these classes should focus a lot on skills, especially because they are homebodies rather than adventurers. However, I am intrigued by the idea of giving rogues more skill points.

I like the idea that monks should use d10 as their Hit-Dice. Every little bit helps!

Maybe I'm just slow to recognize your genius. You have given me plenty of food for thought! Thank you.

Non casters. Their casting has much weak in it. Some strong, but still much weak.

Commoner is supposed to be the epitome of a terrible class. I like to imagine that everyone is playing gestalt games, and they are all gestalted with commoner. Even the commoners.

I'd honestly rather up monks to full BAB. Or both.

Please don't do more than expand the number of feats and skills. Banning splatbooks and miserable point buys aren't fun for anyone.

Duke of Urrel

2014-03-08, 11:26 PM

Non casters. Their casting has much weak in it. Some strong, but still much weak.

I'm leaning that way anyway. Thanks for the input.

Commoner is supposed to be the epitome of a terrible class. I like to imagine that everyone is playing gestalt games, and they are all gestalted with commoner. Even the commoners.

Commoners shouldn't be attractive to PCs in any way, but they do have to live. They should be good at something, and that involves developing some skill, preferably Craft or Profession.

I'd honestly rather up monks to full BAB. Or both.

I also like the idea of giving monks a full BAB.

Please don't do more than expand the number of feats and skills. Banning splatbooks and miserable point buys aren't fun for anyone.

I am a long way from deciding what I like and don't like about the various non-core rulebooks. Certainly not everything in them favors only spellcasters. I am particularly fond of the Mage Slayer feats and the feats that depend upon it.

Vhaidara

2014-03-08, 11:49 PM

Commoners shouldn't be attractive to PCs in any way, but they do have to live. They should be good at something, and that involves developing some skill, preferably Craft or Profession.

They do. They get 2+ Int skill points per level (same as fighter, cleric, and wizard, ironically), and their skill list includes Profession (which makes you enough to get by when you aren't buying weapons and the like). So any normal commoner will have 2 of their skills maxed, and a human commoner or one of a race that has +2 Int will have 3.

Also, I just noticed that, unlike Fighter, Commoners get Spot and Listen. Actually, I almost like the Commoner class skills better than the Fighter class skills

Magikeeper

2014-03-09, 01:48 AM

How are you getting +14? Ij only count 6 form feats

...Because I misread it to be based on remaining duration instead of number of feats. Every time. I even double checked it before making the previous post. I bow my head in shame and admit the feat is bad.

**Triple checks other feats I talked about.

...Okay, I'm good.**

Rejusu

2014-03-09, 10:20 AM

Stella, I am going to bookmark this thread for future reference. The idea of giving more feats to non-spellcaster classes or "mundanes" intrigues me. There are so many feats, and the commonest complaint I hear about them is that so many of them are chained together, so that it's necessary to acquire "poor" feats at first in order to acquire "excellent" ones later. Simply awarding more feats greatly reduces this problem, I think.

I don't know whether I would increase the number of feats for mundanes as much as you have, because that might make mundane classes too similar. However, I would consider increasing the number of feats from one every three levels to two every three levels for all non-spellcaster classes. (The pattern would be to gain feats at levels 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19, for a total of 13 rather than only seven feats.) I would keep the same number of bonus feats for fighters, because I don't want fighters to become too much alike.

I don't know whether it's better to consider paladins and rangers to be spellcasters or non-spellcasters.

I don't favor the idea of increasing skill points for all non-spellcaster classes, except for the lowly commoner and expert NPC classes. I think these classes should focus a lot on skills, especially because they are homebodies rather than adventurers. However, I am intrigued by the idea of giving rogues more skill points.

I like the idea that monks should use d10 as their Hit-Dice. Every little bit helps!

Maybe I'm just slow to recognize your genius. You have given me plenty of food for thought! Thank you.

Be careful praising Stella, you might give her/him the idea that their solution is a good one. As has already been pointed out giving mundanes more feats can help, but only if you give them worthwhile feats to choose from. Giving them more feats but limiting that selection to core only (as Stella has proposed) makes it worse, not better. Even though they can pile on more feats, the feats they can choose from are pretty bad. If you asked most people on these boards if they'd rather have the normal number of feats and access to non-core material or double feats with a core only restriction they would choose the former rather than the latter.

As for giving more skill points to classes it's a similar problem. You can give the fighter a ton of skill points but it doesn't change the fact that he's got no where to put them because his skill list sucks. To put it simply the class balance in 3.5 is not such a simple matter that it can be fixed by adding more numbers.

OldTrees1

2014-03-09, 11:55 AM

To put it simply the class balance in 3.5 is not such a simple matter that it can be fixed by adding more numbers.

But can be improved to a point by adding more content (feats, skill list, ACFs, manuevers) to match the increased numbers

Lans

2014-03-12, 03:17 AM

Part of this has to do with how balanced you want the game. You can get most of the classes to high 4-low 3 with increased numbers, find a way to restrict the T1s, and you have a T3+-1 balance point.

Like figuring out the game breaking spells and limiting them to an advanced learning feature, or limiting clerics to healers list+domains

Stella

2014-03-16, 09:45 PM

As has already been pointed out giving mundanes more feats can help, but only if you give them worthwhile feats to choose from. Giving them more feats but limiting that selection to core only (as Stella has proposed) makes it worse, not better. Even though they can pile on more feats, the feats they can choose from are pretty bad.*Ahem* That's not what I said, at all.

Players of classes other than Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid may request permission to use Feats from other source material, at the GM’s discretion.

As for giving more skill points to classes it's a similar problem. You can give the fighter a ton of skill points but it doesn't change the fact that he's got no where to put them because his skill list sucks.The Fighters skill list only sucks if the campaign ignores the game play situations which might utilize those skills. And that's not something that any attempt at class balance is going to be able to address.

Adding skill points to the Fighter allows him to be better at the skills he has available to him. This is the entire point, to empower the lower Tier characters to be better able to contribute better than they are now. The point is not to make the Fighter into a Wizard. A Fighter with higher skills in even their limited skill list is still able to contribute more to the adventure, so long as the adventure has challenges which require whose skills. With 4 + INT mod to skills, the Fighter will have high skills in 4 of the available skills, which means better Riding, Intimidation, Handle Animal, Jump, Craft, whatever. This may seem trivial in a simple comparison of power, but I suggest that it isn't trivial in a comparison of character contribution.

To put it simply the class balance in 3.5 is not such a simple matter that it can be fixed by adding more numbers.You make an assertion which cannot be supported. This is a numbers game. It can only be balanced by adding numbers to one class over another.

I'd honestly rather up monks to full BAB. Or both.
I also like the idea of giving monks a full BAB.I'm not sure what the "both" referred to, but giving Monks a D10 was intended to help balance them. They get a few free feats as it is, and some very unique abilities. Giving them full BAB would make them better than Fighters and would not help the balance issue.

Please don't do more than expand the number of feats and skills. Banning splatbooks and miserable point buys aren't fun for anyone.Splatbooks aren't banned, for the non-Tier 1 classes. If players of the Tier 1 classes think that access to the splatbooks is required for them to have fun, then I'm not interested in their opinions. It's not a debate that the more spells which are available, the more unbalanced the casters become.

I'm not sure what you consider to be a "miserable point buy", but you might note that the lower tier classes get bonus stat points.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-03-16, 09:52 PM

The Fighters skill list only sucks if the campaign ignores the game play situations which might utilize those skills.
And what situations are those, exactly? Jumping and Climbing are weakened by ACP and rendered irrelevant by fly, as is Swim in most situations. Ride is useful for specific builds, but the fighter has no native access to a level-appropriate mount. Handle Animal can be optimized to lethality, but I have trouble imagining it coming up in most games. Ditto Craft. Intimidate is your only worthwhile skill, but you've got no other use for Charisma and none of the synergy skills.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-03-16, 10:01 PM

Someone once described the difference between core and all materials casters vs non-casters as something like core being an Apache with a cloaking device vs a bear and all materials being an Apache with a laser cannon and superior maneuverability vs a dire bear that can spit acid and has wings. The Apache may still win, but the difference between the two bears is more drastic than the difference between the two assault choppers.

Vhaidara

2014-03-16, 10:04 PM

I'm not sure what you consider to be a "miserable point buy", but you might note that the lower tier classes get bonus stat points.

A point buy where the T1s will simply grab 18 in casting stat, 14 Con, and then have a 9 and 3 8s.

Meanwhile, the mundanes need Str and Con at minimum. Non-heavy armors or anyone wanting Combat Reflexes will want Dex, anyone wanting Combat Expertise feats will need the 13 Int, Paladins still need Cha and Wis, Monks and Rangers still need Wis.

As far as it being a numbers game, at what point do numbers give you flight? Teleportation? The ability to fundamentally alter reality (Wish)?

Yes, you give stat points. But you do nothing to reduce MAD, and you give 2 points. That is not a lot at all.

eggynack

2014-03-16, 10:17 PM

*Ahem* That's not what I said, at all.
It's really similar to what you said. Having splat books but with DM discretion at every step makes things difficult. More difficult than they have to be.

The Fighters skill list only sucks if the campaign ignores the game play situations which might utilize those skills. And that's not something that any attempt at class balance is going to be able to address.

Adding skill points to the Fighter allows him to be better at the skills he has available to him. This is the entire point, to empower the lower Tier characters to be better able to contribute better than they are now. The point is not to make the Fighter into a Wizard. A Fighter with higher skills in even their limited skill list is still able to contribute more to the adventure, so long as the adventure has challenges which require whose skills. With 4 + INT mod to skills, the Fighter will have high skills in 4 of the available skills, which means better Riding, Intimidation, Handle Animal, Jump, Craft, whatever. This may seem trivial in a simple comparison of power, but I suggest that it isn't trivial in a comparison of character contribution.
Not really. Most of those skills are really bad. You can cover the entire list with 2+int, and do so trivially, because you have intimidate, which is good, and the rest is highly mediocre. Handle animal is nice at early levels, and ride is situationally not the worst, but that's still less than 4 skills. this makes the fighter slightly more powerful, but it's basically nothing. I would advise, at the very least, making the zhentarim soldier changes a part of the base class. That would mean adding bluff and diplomacy, and a bunch of intimidate stuff. You should probably add a lot of other stuff too.

You make an assertion which cannot be supported. This is a numbers game. It can only be balanced by adding numbers to one class over another.

That is completely untrue. Point to the numbers that run solid fog, or teleport, or fly. Caster abilities transcend numbers, and when they do touch numbers, they touch numbers of the caster's choice, and they do so lightly.

I'm not sure what the "both" referred to, but giving Monks a D10 was intended to help balance them. They get a few free feats as it is, and some very unique abilities. Giving them full BAB would make them better than Fighters and would not help the balance issue.
If this would make monks more powerful than fighters, and I'm quite doubtful, as you haven't changed that much, then make fighters more powerful. You're still paddling around in tiers four and five. It's just not nearly enough.

Stella

2014-03-16, 10:18 PM

And what situations are those, exactly [where Fighter skills might contribute to the adventure]? Jumping and Climbing are weakened by ACP and rendered irrelevant by fly, as is Swim in most situations. Ride is useful for specific builds, but the fighter has no native access to a level-appropriate mount. Handle Animal can be optimized to lethality, but I have trouble imagining it coming up in most games. Ditto Craft. Intimidate is your only worthwhile skill, but you've got no other use for Charisma and none of the synergy skills.With only Core to utilize, a caster who uses Fly, a 1 round/level spell, only to overcome a skill their Fighter has, is probably not playing very well. There is no round limitation on Jump or Climb.

In the end, this is a game of imagination. If you are not capable of imagining a situation in which a Fighter with higher skill levels and stats is better able of capable of contributing to an adventure, than there isn't going to be much I can say to convince you otherwise.

I will suggest, however, that the typical char-op responses simply don't apply in this case. Yelling out "Fly!" when the Wizard is limited to Core and the lower Tier classes have been buffed just isn't as accurate when all the splat books are available to all of the classes. It's just not as feasible for a Wizard to want to spend a 3rd level spell slot on Fly when they know that the Fighter or other characters in the group can contribute that capability using spell slot free skills.

Yes, the Wizard is still capable of using spells to meet or exceed the skills of all of the other players. But this ability is now at a much higher cost. And that was the entire point of this attempt at balance.

eggynack

2014-03-16, 10:22 PM

With only Core to utilize, a caster who uses Fly, a 1 round/level spell, only to overcome a skill their Fighter has, is probably not playing very well. There is no round limitation on Jump or Climb.
Fly is minutes/level. Overland flight is hours/level. Wild shaping into a bat is hours/level, several times a day.

In the end, this is a game of imagination. If you are not capable of imagining a situation in which a Fighter with higher skill levels and stats is better able of capable of contributing to an adventure, than there isn't going to be much I can say to convince you otherwise.
If I'm just playing the crazy imagination game, why increase balance at all?

I will suggest, however, that the typical char-op responses simply don't apply in this case. Yelling out "Fly!" when the Wizard is limited to Core and the lower Tier classes have been buffed isn't as accurate when all the splat books are available to all of the classes. It's just not as feasible for a Wizard to want to spend a 3rd level spell slot on Fly when they know that the Fighter or other characters in the group can contribute that capability using spell slot free skills.
Fighters can't fly using spell slot free skills. They can jump, or climb, which is vaguely similar in incredibly specific situations, but there's no replacement for flight.

Yes, the Wizard is still capable of using spells to meet or exceed the skills of all of the other players. But this ability is now at a much higher cost. And that was the entire point of this attempt at balance.
Unless I'm missing something, it looks like that ability comes at pretty much the exact same cost. A wizard limited to core can still do pretty much anything, and not at the insane costs you're implying either.

OldTrees1

2014-03-16, 10:28 PM

You make an assertion which cannot be supported. This is a numbers game. It can only be balanced by adding numbers to one class over another.

D&D is not just a numbers game.

Take 2 racers. One can fly the other cannot. The finish line is 10,000ft above the ground. While you can increase the grounded racer's jump check by increasing their land speed, you would have to increase it by a ridiculous amount before they could compete in this race. So we need to recognize that there are quantitative and qualitative differences between these racers. Some of the time (aerial combat over the ocean for example) these qualitative differences need to be addressed rather than just increasing numbers. As a designer, you need to realize you have more than just quantitative tools at your disposal when you are designing content.

TuggyNE

2014-03-16, 10:41 PM

You make an assertion which cannot be supported. This is a numbers game. It can only be balanced by adding numbers to one class over another.

It is indeed a numbers game, loosely speaking; unfortunately, many of the numbers have extremely complex or nigh-unmeasurable relations, such as the rather thoroughly-discussed difference between qualitative and quantitative abilities. Almost the entirety of balance problems in 3.x come from two basic sources: outliers in the body of published spells, and outliers in the body of published feats. Without addressing these individually, balance cannot be attained, because the source of balance problems is almost entirely exceptions to general rules.

In microcosm, you can see this problem with the PHBII (polymorph) subschool rules, which made various nerfs to polymorphing spells … but then clarified that individual spell descriptions still hold, which means that absolutely nothing changed!

Stella

2014-03-16, 11:00 PM

Having splat books but with DM discretion at every step makes things difficult. More difficult than they have to be.If involving the DM in the direction of the game is "difficult" for you, you might be playing the wrong game.

This is a numbers game. It can only be balanced by adding numbers to one class over another.
That is completely untrue. Point to the numbers that run solid fog, or teleport, or fly. Caster abilities transcend numbers, and when they do touch numbers, they touch numbers of the caster's choice, and they do so lightly. I thought I'd already done that. Let me try again, using only one word: Core. Thus, none of the splatbook madness which only serves to widen the difference between casting classes and non-casting classes. Point to the numbers that limit Solid Fog, or Teleport, or Fly, or any other spell you care to cite? That's easy: Spells per day. That is a hard core, numbers based limitation.

Core still allows casters a good number of spells per day, but no where near the situation as an "all splatbook" environment does. In this environment, the char-op droolers can't simply yell out "Fly!" when someone suggests that a Fighter with Climb might be able to contribute to the adventure, because memorizing Fly has a cost. It costs a spell slot which might be, and probably is, far better suited to another spell selection. The Wizard can rely on their party for skills which can accomplish the same effect without costing her a spell slot.

If I'm just playing the crazy imagination game, why increase balance at all?I welcome intelligent rebuttal, but simply saying "nu-uh" or insinuating that imagination doesn't play a part in a role playing game isn't contributing anything to the discussion.

I'm happy to acknowledge that what I've proposed isn't perfect. And in fact I have already done so. But if you can't understand, or simply refuse to understand because it might weaken your debate position, that there is a vast potential for game situations (i.e. situations created via the "crazy imagination" of the DM) which allow non-casters to contribute to the adventure in the environment I have proposed, than I think that we don't have anything left to discuss.

This wasn't intended to be a char-op thread, in which people simply yelled out their favorite spell which replaces all other classes abilities. And while I thought that I had set the stage for a discussion in which such char-op weenies would find themselves unable to do so, I now see that I was wrong.

No matter the spells per day limitation, some people will never be able to understand that while the Wizard may be able to cast a spell which makes the skill or specialization of another class invalid, this capability comes with a cost. And in some cases a huge cost. A cost a lot of casters in a game might be loathe to pay, given the wealth of other options they have available to them.

eggynack

2014-03-16, 11:11 PM

If involving the DM in the direction of the game is "difficult" for you, you might be playing the wrong game.
Involving the DM in this part of the game, which is the only thing keeping this balance attempt from actually lowering the balance of the game, is just a bad idea.

I thought I'd already done that. Let me try again, using only one word: Core. Thus, none of the splatbook madness which only serves to widen the difference between casting classes and non-casting classes. Point to the numbers that limit Solid Fog, or Teleport, or Fly, or any other spell you care to cite? That's easy: Spells per day. That is a hard core, numbers based limitation.
That's not really a big issue. I'm talking about what the characters can actually do, and while casters are limited in a per-day sense, these are things that non-casters are just incapable of. Numbers aren't why casters are better, and if they are, you've done absolutely nothing to change the relevant numbers. Look at it like this: How many times can this 9th level wizard teleport in a day? Let's say two. How many times can this 9th level fighter teleport in a day? Zero. Your fighter's numbers are infinitely smaller. Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, splatbooks do not widen the difference. They shrink it. Most borked caster stuff is in core.

Core still allows casters a good number of spells per day, but no where near the situation as an "all splatbook" environment does. In this environment, the char-op droolers can't simply yell out "Fly!" when someone suggests that a Fighter with Climb might be able to contribute to the adventure, because memorizing Fly has a cost. It costs a spell slot which might be, and probably is, far better suited to another spell selection. The Wizard can rely on their party for skills which can accomplish the same effect without costing her a spell slot.
What are you even talking about? Spells cost slots in a splat book having game too. If high optimizers were yelling about fly before, you've changed literally nothing about that with your fix.

I welcome intelligent rebuttal, but simply saying "nu-uh" or insinuating that imagination doesn't play a part in a role playing game isn't contributing anything to the discussion.
It plays a part in the game. It just doesn't really play a part in balance. The wizard could also have an imagination, and a fighter can't imagine themselves into flight.

I'm happy to acknowledge that what I've proposed isn't perfect. And in fact I have already done so. But if you can't understand, or simply refuse to understand because it might weaken your debate position, that there is a vast potential for game situations (i.e. situations created via the "crazy imagination" of the DM) which allow non-casters to contribute to the adventure in the environment I have proposed, than I think that we don't have anything left to discuss.
If the fighters could participate in this "balanced" game, then they could also participate in an "unbalanced" game, to pretty much the same degree.

This wasn't intended to be a char-op thread, in which people simply yelled out their favorite spell which replaces all other classes abilities. And while I thought that I had set the stage for a discussion in which such char-op weenies would find themselves unable to do so, I now see that I was wrong.
Spells that replace other class' abilities are why the game is unbalanced. If you don't understand that, then you should likely take some more time trying to understand the system before proposing fixes.

No matter the spells per day limitation, some people will never be able to understand that while the Wizard may be able to cast a spell which makes the skill or specialization of another class invalid, this capability comes with a cost. And in some cases a huge cost. A cost a lot of casters in a game might be loathe to pay, given the wealth of other options they have available to them.

It really depends on the caster, and really, you've done nothing to alter this factor. These costs aren't that big, even in core, and a wizard has a much easier time replacing a fighter than a fighter does replacing a wizard. Really, your argument right now is, "The game was already balanced, so this balance attempt necessarily creates a balanced game."

Grod_The_Giant

2014-03-16, 11:17 PM

If involving the DM in the direction of the game is "difficult" for you, you might be playing the wrong game.
The difficulty lies in the proposed need to get every non-core element of your build approved individually. "I'd like two levels of this class, this prestige class, these two feats and these three items, please. Oh, I can't use that feat? That means I'll have to find a new PrC, and change two of the items... oh, wait, that PrC isn't OK either? Alright, maybe if I change my build like so..."

I thought I'd already done that. Let me try again, using only one word: Core. Thus, none of the splatbook madness which only serves to widen the difference between casting classes and non-casting classes.
Core Fighter: Power Attack and Improved Trip.
Splatbook Fighter: Zhentrim Soldier Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a Barbarian dip for Pounce, Anklets of Translocation for swift-action teleporting, and Knockback.
Core Wizard: Polymorph, Solid Fog, Teleport, Planar Binding, Fly, Wish, Contingency, Gate, Shapechange, Glitterdust.
Splatbook Wizard: Add Celerity to the list above and take Craft Contingent Spell.

Which class benefited more?

memorizing Fly has a cost.
That's correct. However, it's a tiny cost compared to the Fighter's decision to learn Improved Trip instead of Improved Grapple, since you can change your mind the next day.

Stella

2014-03-16, 11:26 PM

D&D is not just a numbers game.

Take 2 racers. One can fly the other cannot. The finish line is 10,000ft above the ground. While you can increase the grounded racer's jump check by increasing their land speed, you would have to increase it by a ridiculous amount before they could compete in this race. So we need to recognize that there are quantitative and qualitative differences between these racers. Some of the time (aerial combat over the ocean for example) these qualitative differences need to be addressed rather than just increasing numbers. As a designer, you need to realize you have more than just quantitative tools at your disposal when you are designing content.You have designed a situation which allows you to meet your intended conclusion. And so of course your conclusion applies in this case.

This is the typical "char-op" response, which designs the solution to fit the ability. There's a wall to climb? Wizard casts Fly, Wizard wins. Etc, etc. And they always want you to ignore the fact that this is only a specific situation, while other challenges may await. A spell cast is a spell gone. Climb never expires.

I could design a situation in which the Fighter with Climb wins a competition (You doubt? Simply make the wall higher than the Wizard can fly up during the spell duration. Once the Fly spell expires, see how much higher the Wizard can climb before falling to her death.), but that would be doing the same thing, designing a solution to fit the ability.

Wizards need to select their spells for the day. And while few limitations will eliminate the capability of a Wizard to provide the capability needed to overcome any specific challenge, no Wizard in the environment proposed will have all the spells in their spell book, much less memorized for the day, to be able to simply dominate the game in the way that the char-ops types would like to suggest. The Fly spell is wonderful and it can overcome a lot of game challenges, but it has a cost, and that cost will be keenly seen as the party is challenged by things other than a rock wall. The smart Wizard (and aren't they supposed to be smart?) will let their group supply the spell surrogates when a real spell isn't needed.

eggynack

2014-03-16, 11:36 PM

You have designed a situation which allows you to meet your intended conclusion. And so of course your conclusion applies in this case.

This is the typical "char-op" response, which designs the solution to fit the ability. There's a wall to climb? Wizard casts Fly, Wizard wins. Etc, etc. And they always want you to ignore the fact that this is only a specific situation, while other challenges may await. A spell cast is a spell gone. Climb never expires.
Really, most situations are like that, especially the ones in which fly is best. If you're facing a group of melee enemies, fly. If you're trying to cross a chasm, fly. If you're trying to negate another's flight, and hit them in the face, fly (more relevant for the more melee inclined casters).

I could design a situation in which the Fighter with Climb wins a competition (You doubt? Simply make the wall higher than the Wizard can fly up during the spell duration. Once the Fly spell expires, see how much higher the Wizard can climb before falling to her death.), but that would be doing the same thing, designing a solution to fit the ability.
Wanna try designing such a situation weighted against a 6th or 8th level druid, or a 9th level wizard running overland flight? As is, the wizard is travelling upwards at a rate of 30 feet a round, for 5 minutes. That's 50 rounds, which means 1500 feet of ascension. That's a pretty big wall. If enemies are attacking you while you're on that wall, the fighter isn't going to be in the best shape.

Wizards need to select their spells for the day. And while few limitations will eliminate the capability of a Wizard to provide the capability needed to overcome any specific challenge, no Wizard in the environment proposed will have all the spells in their spell book, much less memorized for the day, to be able to simply dominate the game in the way that the char-ops types would like to suggest. The Fly spell is wonderful and it can overcome a lot of game challenges, but it has a cost, and that cost will be keenly seen as the party is challenged by things other than a rock wall. The smart Wizard (and aren't they supposed to be smart?) will let their group supply the spell surrogates when a real spell isn't needed.
So... you think the game is balanced currently? Because that's the impression I'm getting, because you've done next to nothing to change any of these factors. Why are you presenting changes to the game at all?

Stella

2014-03-16, 11:44 PM

The difficulty lies in the proposed need to get every non-core element of your build approved individually. "I'd like two levels of this class, this prestige class, these two feats and these three items, please. Oh, I can't use that feat? That means I'll have to find a new PrC, and change two of the items... oh, wait, that PrC isn't OK either? Alright, maybe if I change my build like so..."I'm not sure why this is hard...
Player to DM: Here's what I'd like to do with my character. <describes>
DM: Either approves or denies.
There's no need to suggest a 'surprise' ruin to your intended build if you have a plan and share it with the DM. You're making up a limitation which need not apply as long as you communicate. If you're into surprising your DM with a broken build, then all I can say is, too bad for you.

Core Fighter: Power Attack and Improved Trip.
Splatbook Fighter: Zhentrim Soldier Dungeoncrasher Fighter with a Barbarian dip for Pounce, Anklets of Translocation for swift-action teleporting, and Knockback.
Core Wizard: Polymorph, Solid Fog, Teleport, Planar Binding, Fly, Wish, Contingency, Gate, Shapechange, Glitterdust.
Splatbook Wizard: Add Celerity to the list above and take Craft Contingent Spell.

Which class benefited more?You're seriously comparing a 17th level Wizard (Wish) with a 3rd level Fighter (Power Attack, Combat Expertise [prerequisite feat], Improved Trip)? Really? Do you expect me to take this seriously?
I'm not sure if you had a point, but the entire scenario is just ludicrous.

Seerow

2014-03-16, 11:45 PM

I thought I'd already done that. Let me try again, using only one word: Core. Thus, none of the splatbook madness which only serves to widen the difference between casting classes and non-casting classes.

Um... if you're restricting to core only, what feats is your Fighter taking with his 32 Fighter bonus feats?

If you actually do have a list, please also explain to me what about this makes the Fighter able to compete on even terms with even CR14 enemies. Much less CR20+.

Seriously, Core-only fighter is just about one of the worst things in the game. I think I'd play a monk in core only before a Fighter.

You're seriously comparing a 17th level Wizard (Wish) with a 3rd level Fighter (Power Attack, Combat Expertise [prerequisite feat], Improved Trip)? Really? Do you expect me to take this seriously?

He was listing abilities for a core only fighter. There's not a lot of selection there. He probably listed the two best feats in core. Yes they are low level and crap compared to anything a Wizard can do at any level. That's the entire point!

Vhaidara

2014-03-16, 11:47 PM

The point is that Group summarized what Fighter has in core that is useful. Regardless of your level, it doesn't make other feats useful.

Also, how is that a level 3 fighter? Level 2 at the latest, level 1 if human.

Also, in case you missed it, I explained the problem with your 25 point buy on the previous page.

Stella

2014-03-16, 11:50 PM

Um... if you're restricting to core only, what feats is your Fighter taking with his 32 Fighter bonus feats? Once you read the OP, then you might be able to contribute something to the discussion. Asking questions which are prima facie irrelevant does not contribute. You may as well have come here and asked why the sky was blue...

Seerow

2014-03-16, 11:52 PM

Once you read the OP, then you might be able to contribute something to the discussion. Asking questions which are prima facie irrelevant does not contribute. You may as well have come here and asked why the sky was blue...

In otherwords, no, you can't make a core-only fighter. Thank you for answering.

Stella

2014-03-17, 12:10 AM

In otherwords, no, you can't make a core-only fighter. Thank you for answering.Not in other words, you still haven't read (or perhaps, understood) the OP. I never suggested anything like that, so fight your straw men elsewhere, please.

The point is that Group summarized what Fighter has in core that is useful. Regardless of your level, it doesn't make other feats useful.And that still ignores the fact that feats outside of Core are available to the Fighter, which makes whatever Group summarized irrelevant.

Also, how is that a level 3 fighter? Level 2 at the latest, level 1 if human.Pick your nits as you will. Compare a 1st or a 3rd level Fighter with a 17th level Wizard, it's still as ludicrous.

Also, in case you missed it, I explained the problem with your 25 point buy on the previous page.I didn't miss it, but you make the same error as so many others. I wonder if it's an intentional error, in order to try to make your point, or if it's simply an error due to a lack of reading comprehension.

Elite Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) or 25 point buy.This isn't a 25 point buy. It's the Elite array or a 25 point buy.
And all the non-Tier 1 classes get +1 to 2 stats of players choice.

Please tell me which class is impossible to qualify for using this system. If you really can't stand playing with a character who has only a 16 and a 15 as their highest stat scores (assuming you boost the two highest scores and don't raise the lower ones), you might want to make a saving throw against disease: min/max.

OldTrees1

2014-03-17, 12:11 AM

eggynack

2014-03-17, 12:15 AM

Not in other words, you still haven't read (or perhaps, understood) the OP. I never suggested anything like that, so fight your straw men elsewhere, please.
If non-core is only available with DM permission, then it's possibly not available. If it's not available, then the situation is as he's said it is.

Pick your nits as you will. Compare a 1st or a 3rd level Fighter with a 17th level Wizard, it's still as ludicrous.
Which feats are your 17th level fighter taking that are so good? You're going to hit the realistic end of most chains by third level in your system.
I didn't miss it, but you make the same error as so many others. I wonder if it's an intentional error, in order to try to make your point, or if it's simply an error due to a lack of reading comprehension.

This isn't a 25 point buy. It's the Elite array or a 25 point buy.
That's not really that different.

And all the non-Tier 1 classes get +1 to 2 stats of players choice.
And neither is that.

Seerow

2014-03-17, 12:30 AM

Not in other words, you still haven't read (or perhaps, understood) the OP. I never suggested anything like that, so fight your straw men elsewhere, please.

If what you want is selective core only, why not specify what you actually want to be available?

Something as simple as "Everything non-core except spells" would be useful. Or even just "All non-core fighter feats are available" would be a help.

Relegating everything to DM adjucation makes your attempt at a fix effectively meaningless. And as has been pointing out, and you are deliberately ignoring, in the hands of a DM who reads "core only" as "core only", will result in characters with literally more feats than they have available to take.

This isn't a 25 point buy. It's the Elite array or a 25 point buy.

Are you actually aware that the Elite Array is a 25 point buy?

And why are you continuing to ignore that casters can ignore all of their attributes in a way that mundanes cannot afford. A mundane character wants a minimum 14 in all of their physicals, with a 16 in their primary physical, and they want 13 in at least 1 or 2 mentals for feat prerequisites if nothing else. Incidentally a spread of 16/14/14/13/13/8 is exactly a 32 point buy, which would be somewhat better. Meanwhile the primary caster goes from 18/14/10/9/8/8 to 18/16/14/8/8/8. It's pretty clear that the more MAD character gains a lot more benefit here.

And no, a +1 to 2 stats doesn't make the difference. Because the whole point is that the mundane needs to spread their stats thin. If you gave them +1 to all stats they could go with something like 15/13/13/13/10/8, so they're still screwed if they wanted a second mental attribute, but are better off. Or you could simply give the mundane classes a higher point buy. OR you could make it so mundane classes count as if their attributes are higher for feat prerequisites. Or let them ignore feat prerequisites. Or you gain extra point buy/stats as you level. Or any number of various things.

But you are doing none of them. You're tossing a bunch of feats and a couple skillpoints at the mundanes, and calling them good. That is not a fix. It is a bandaid, and it's a bad one. I'm not as extreme as some around here when it comes to the utility of feats (my Fighter fix has a pretty heavy feat focus compared to what most people around here would want), but seriously what you have here is nearly useless at what you want to accomplish. Until you acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the rules you posted in your original post aren't perfect and people aren't just ignoring your post and strawmanning you, you're going to keep meeting resistance because you are trying to push your 'balancing' changes as something they are not.

TuggyNE

2014-03-17, 02:38 AM

Wizards need to select their spells for the day. And while few limitations will eliminate the capability of a Wizard to provide the capability needed to overcome any specific challenge, no Wizard in the environment proposed will have all the spells in their spell book, much less memorized for the day, to be able to simply dominate the game in the way that the char-ops types would like to suggest.

I always wonder how many spells people think it takes to be able to do this kind of stuff, and how many spells they think a Wizard gets. The polymorph line gives you a lot, and (lesser/greater) planar binding or summon X gives you a lot more. Add in assorted other buffs and save-or-X/just-X spells as available, and you can probably accomplish most char-op things with just the 4 spells/spell level a bog-standard Wizard gets for free.

Sure, it's nice to scribe from borrowed/looted spellbooks (which, incidentally, a canny player would likely go to considerable lengths to acquire, given how extremely valuable they'd be), but it's not essential, even if it's almost certainly available.

The Fly spell is wonderful and it can overcome a lot of game challenges, but it has a cost, and that cost will be keenly seen as the party is challenged by things other than a rock wall. The smart Wizard (and aren't they supposed to be smart?) will let their group supply the spell surrogates when a real spell isn't needed.

If the party needs to get over a wall, then chances are they all need to, and the Wizard's way of doing so is vastly superior to the Fighter's for most purposes, such that, were there two Wizards instead of a Fighter and a Wizard, the party would be better off. The Fighter has no surrogate that can make the Wizard fly or even climb significantly better in most cases, and this is even more true for the general body of problems that are not addressed by skills on the Fighter's pitifully short list.

I'm not sure why this is hard...
Player to DM: Here's what I'd like to do with my character. <describes>
DM: Either approves or denies.
There's no need to suggest a 'surprise' ruin to your intended build if you have a plan and share it with the DM. You're making up a limitation which need not apply as long as you communicate. If you're into surprising your DM with a broken build, then all I can say is, too bad for you.

It's not necessarily about surprising your DM at all; it's about communication inefficiencies. Character building is a long and complex process, and adding friction to each possible option increases the amount of work you have to do; for completeness' sake, you need to go through probably 30-60 possibilities, each of which you have to briefly summarize, wait for the DM to look through and vet, and then figure out which of those you'll actually use. That's like another, what, 2.5 hours minimum, if you only need to check 10 items and the DM is right on the line with you and only needs 15 minutes each? And a Fighter with 40+ feats is not going to have a mere 10 items, I tell you what.

In particular, this is unfortunate because as far as I can tell, it's a matter of explicitly allowing, rather than not forbidding; all non-Core material is assumed to be bad with perhaps a few grudging exceptions, which is not really reasonable, and makes things a lot more inefficient because of the sheer number of exceptions which one can easily come up with that are, in fact, rubber-stamped by any competent DM. This is just busywork for everyone.

A better solution would, indeed, be to assume that non-Core material is mostly good, with the possible exception of certain books, and with the definite exception of certain specific elements that have been cataloged pretty thoroughly by assorted handbooks and (in some cases) my own Top Ten Worst project or Dysfunctional Rules or whatever else.

Some people also suggesting banning Core, or at least Core spells and magic items and classes; I'm not so sure about that, but there's certainly some wisdom in the idea of giving the gimlet eye to the absolute least-balanced books in 3.5: the PHB and DMG. (Fully half of the top voted entries in the aforementioned Top Ten Worst were from Core, more than any other single book by a factor of at least three times. And then five out of the thirteen dishonorable mentions were also Core; again, far more than any other book.)

Stella

2014-03-17, 03:31 AM

I always wonder how many spells people think it takes to be able to do this kind of stuff, and how many spells they think a Wizard gets. The polymorph line gives you a lot, and (lesser/greater) planar binding or summon X gives you a lot more. Add in assorted other buffs and save-or-X/just-X spells as available, and you can probably accomplish most char-op things with just the 4 spells/spell level a bog-standard Wizard gets for free.Yeah, this is the kind of response I expect from the char-op crowd. Take your average 5th level party in the environment I have outlined, and tell me how many Wizards will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day.

Or don't tell me, because I know the answer: The hypothetical Wizard will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day in any hypothetical situation in which Fly is needed to overcome an adventure challenge. Yeah...

And let's ignore all the times that having Fly memorized actually hurts the party because a different spell would allow the Wizard to contribute better towards the party success, because that would just be insanity, right? But that's how the "Wizards rule, everyone else drools" crowd operates. It's just so easy to shout out your favorite spell which makes the Wizard make redundant everyone else in the party, but it always ignores the spells per day limitation. Because Haste, or Hold Person or Stinking Cloud couldn't possibly be a better choice than Fly, right? But wait, Hold Person would suddenly be the spell of choice were the adventure challenge to be about a humanoid with a low Will save. Because that's how these things work, right?

It's not necessarily about surprising your DM at all; it's about communication inefficiencies. Character building is a long and complex process, and adding friction to each possible option increases the amount of work you have to do; for completeness' sake, you need to go through probably 30-60 possibilities, each of which you have to briefly summarize, wait for the DM to look through and vet, and then figure out which of those you'll actually use. That's like another, what, 2.5 hours minimum, if you only need to check 10 items and the DM is right on the line with you and only needs 15 minutes each? And a Fighter with 40+ feats is not going to have a mere 10 items, I tell you what.Assuming that I accept your premise, which I do not, let's explore the alternative you appear to support: A character should be able to be built in any particular game and not require any vetting at all from the DM. This character can be built using materials from any splatbook available, and the DM should just roll over and allow it regardless of any impact said character might have on the setting or the story she has crafted for the players in her game.

Does that sound about right? If so, good luck with that. The best DMs have a setting and a story in mind, and it is not unreasonable at all for them to impose limits on their player's characters in order to ensure that they comply with their vision.

I only suggest a framework which hopes to balance the classes a bit.

I'm not sure why you characterize
Players of classes other than Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid may request permission to use Feats from other source material, at the GM’s discretion.as "a few grudging exceptions", because that is far from anything I have said. I do think that this says a lot more about your mind set than it does about mine. But hey, just more straw men for you to tilt against if you insist upon inventing them.

My intent is balance. Pure and simple. Here are my opening words, in case they have been forgotten:

This is an attempt at balance, and IMO I really don't think it goes far enough, but it should work pretty well in most campaigns.
It won't work at all in "sandbox" campaigns where the DM allows anything and everything. But then, ipso facto, nothing will provide balance in those settings.

Dr.Gara

2014-03-17, 03:41 AM

Yeah, this is the kind of response I expect from the char-op crowd. Take your average 5th level party in the environment I have outlined, and tell me how many Wizards will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day.

Or don't tell me, because I know the answer: The hypothetical Wizard will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day in any hypothetical situation in which Fly is needed to overcome an adventure challenge. Yeah...

And let's ignore all the times that having Fly memorized actually hurts the party because a different spell would allow the Wizard to contribute better towards the party success, because that would just be insanity, right? But that's how the "Wizards rule, everyone else drools" crowd operates. It's just so easy to shout out your favorite spell which makes the Wizard make redundant everyone else in the party, but it always ignores the spells per day limitation.

"When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells."

To make my point in a slightly less obtuse way... it doesn't matter. A wizard can keep a spell slot open and slap another spell in. Like Fly, for example.

eggynack

2014-03-17, 03:44 AM

Yeah, this is the kind of response I expect from the char-op crowd. Take your average 5th level party in the environment I have outlined, and tell me how many Wizards will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day.
A decent amount, I think, and those that don't will be doing other stuff that fighters are also incapable of. Because nearly everything that wizards do is something that fighters are incapable of, and nearly nothing that fighters do is something that wizards are incapable of. Also, a wizard is often going to have more than two 3rd's at 5th level. Specializing gets it up to three, for example.

Or don't tell me, because I know the answer: The hypothetical Wizard will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day in any hypothetical situation in which Fly is needed to overcome an adventure challenge. Yeah... And let's ignore all the times that having Fly memorized actually hurts the party because a different spell would allow the Wizard to contribute better towards the party success, because that would just be insanity, right? But that's how the "Wizards rule, everyone else drools" crowd operates. It's just so easy to shout out your favorite spell which makes the Wizard make redundant everyone else in the party, but it always ignores the spells per day limitation.

He can have other spells, ya know. And wizard analysis pretty much never assumes infinite spells per day. The fact of the matter is, wizard spells are ridiculously efficient. You tend to only need one or two to turn the tide of a given encounter, and you get a lot of them.

Assuming that I accept your premise, which I do not, let's explore the alternative you appear to support: A character should be able to be built in any particular game and not require any vetting at all from the DM. This character can be built using materials from any splatbook available, and the DM should just roll over and allow it regardless of any impact said character might have on the setting or the story she has crafted for the players in her game.
The problem is that you've set nothing as the default, and anything out of core as an exception. You need to do the inverse. Set out of core for non-casters as the default, and the DM always has veto authority when things get out of hand. Also, really, if you're running a melee class, and using out of core materials, it's going to take cheese of an exceptionally stinky variety to get you to the level of casting, even with a massive quantity of feats.

Does that sound about right? If so, good luck with that. The best DMs have a setting and a story in mind, and it is not unreasonable at all for them to impose limits on their player's characters in order to ensure that they comply with their vision.
Exactly. They can impose their own limits. You don't need to be building them in to your balance system.

I only suggest a framework which hopes to balance the classes a bit.
And it doesn't really work.

I'm not sure why you characterizeas "a few grudging exceptions", because that is far from anything I have said. I do think that this says a lot more about your mind set than it does about mine. But hey, just more straw men for you to tilt against if you insist upon inventing them.
It's what is implied heavily by your words. It's what, "Core only, with permission allowable for out of core stuff" means. You're basically putting out of core things at the leadership, item familiar, custom item, and spell research rules level of availability. In essence, if I were to start a fighter optimization thread using your houserules as a framework, we would just have to assume nothing but core, and there wouldn't even be enough feats for the character to take.

My intent is balance. Pure and simple. Here are my opening words, in case they have been forgotten:
The words after them didn't really live up to that standard, of being good enough for most campaigns.

It won't work at all in "sandbox" campaigns where the DM allows anything and everything. But then, ipso facto, nothing will provide balance in those settings.
As I've repeatedly mentioned, these broad book access campaigns are actually more balanced, rather than less. I'm not advocating pun-pun for all. Just a default stance of acceptance.

TuggyNE

2014-03-17, 04:11 AM

Yeah, this is the kind of response I expect from the char-op crowd. Take your average 5th level party in the environment I have outlined, and tell me how many Wizards will memorize Fly as one of their 2 3rd level spells for the day.

They'll take 15 minutes to prepare it when needed, as mentioned. That's, dare I say it, Core.

Assuming that I accept your premise, which I do not, let's explore the alternative you appear to support: A character should be able to be built in any particular game and not require any vetting at all from the DM. This character can be built using materials from any splatbook available, and the DM should just roll over and allow it regardless of any impact said character might have on the setting or the story she has crafted for the players in her game.

NO NO NO. :smallsigh: I specifically said something quite different and took some pains to be clear about it, so now I am sad. It was even already mentioned before that, and also after.

A better solution would, indeed, be to assume that non-Core material is mostly good, with the possible exception of certain books, and with the definite exception of certain specific elements

TL/DR: Ban only the stuff that doesn't work right. Don't ban everything and then unban stuff you're convinced is OK, that's way too slow and gives the wrong dynamic.

georgie_leech

2014-03-17, 04:26 AM

Stella, can you point out a Non-Core book that significantly alters non-caster balance in a negative way such that the default assumption of none of it being available benefits the game? In other words, is there a book of stuff for non-casters that is 50%+ bad for balance?

Edit: Maybe it would help if I explained why a lot of people are saying that it's core-only by default. When people ask about the default assumptions, they're asking what is 100% likely to be allowed. When anything out of core needs to be given the specific OK by the DM, we can't know for sure that it's allowed, so the default is that it isn't. If Not X, then Not X.

Stella

2014-03-17, 04:50 AM

To make my point in a slightly less obtuse way... it doesn't matter. A wizard can keep a spell slot open and slap another spell in. Like Fly, for example.Sure, sure. And when that Wizard is faced with a challenge where their spells might have been of actual use, rather than potentials held back? Here again is the char-op insistence that Tier 1 casters rule whilst all other classes drool.

You assume that the Wizard is comfortable with leaving open one of their highest spell slots just in case Fly might be needed. This is a laughable position, but that won't stop the char-op team from suggesting that it's just a fine and dandy way for any Wizard to operate.

When the next monster pops out, that Wizard might be horribly sorry that that they didn't bother to memorize a decent spell.

eggynack

2014-03-17, 04:59 AM

You assume that the Wizard is comfortable with leaving open one of their highest spell slots just in case Fly might be needed. This is a laughable position, but that won't stop the char-op team from suggesting that it's just a fine and dandy way for any Wizard to operate.
What does, "just in case fly might be needed" mean? Do you think that the wizard will somehow always prepare fly in that slot? Cause if he does, that kinda defeats the purpose. No, the wizard is leaving open one of their several highest level spell slots, just in case you need to solve any problem that doesn't need to be solved right away. That could be anything from tongues, to major image, to magic circle, to dispel magic.

georgie_leech

2014-03-17, 05:05 AM

Sure, sure. And when that Wizard is faced with a challenge where their spells might have been of actual use, rather than potentials held back? Here again is the char-op insistence that Tier 1 casters rule whilst all other classes drool.

You assume that the Wizard is comfortable with leaving open one of their highest spell slots just in case Fly might be needed. This is a laughable position, but that won't stop the char-op team from suggesting that it's just a fine and dandy way for any Wizard to operate.

A Wizard doesn't need their best to do really well though. For instance, a 5th level Wizard could use Alter Self to gain a wide variety of potential bonuses, or use Colour Spray to stun a swath of enemies, or Sleep to take out the same, or Summon Monster II to summon up a quick meatshield that can do damage or distract or grapple or a number of other options, or Web to immobilise enemies, etc. Those are all Core options.

Incidentally, it's not "Leave a third level slot open for Fly" specifically, it's "Leave a Third level slot open for any of the 3rd level spells the Wizard needs." Maybe they run into a situation where Invisibility for the group would be useful, so they fill in Invisibility Sphere; maybe they are going to cross a Gorge and the Bridge is out, so they fill in Fly and let the Resident Strong Guy carry everyone across (or up a cliff, or down a cliff, for that matter); maybe they know a touch fight is coming up against some nasty bruisers, so they and the party retreat for 15 minutes and they prepare Haste to give them an edge.

EDIT: I want to emphasise that no one is saying this fix does nothing. It certainly makes the non-casters more powerful, and gives them at least some added versatility; if the change was labeled as a change to bring Fighters and Rogues and whatnot into Tier 3, this would probably be much better received. As is though, you've presented it as a way to balance Mundanes and Casters, which it doesn't do. The problem in D&D balance is twofold: the Mundanes generally have difficulty contributing in many different areas, while the Casters have abilities that go above and beyond just being able to contribute. The Wizard can still Teleport right past the adventure of moving from Town A to City B; the Cleric can still cast Speak with Dead and ask the murder victim whodunit, or Commune and ask their Diety for info; the Druid can still be a Bear riding a Bear summoning Bears and make the Mundane action economy cry.

Stella

2014-03-17, 05:24 AM

A Wizard doesn't need their best to do really well though. For instance, a 5th level Wizard could use Alter Self to gain a wide variety of potential bonuses, or use Colour Spray to stun a swath of enemies, or Sleep to take out the same, or Summon Monster II to summon up a quick meatshield that can do damage or distract or grapple or a number of other options, or Web to immobilise enemies, etc. Those are all Core options.The 5th level Wizard can do any of those things. And when they do it, they are potent. I've said so, so there is no argument here. But once they do so, they have spent that spell. Without the options available out of Core, they are limited by their spells per day. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this for it to sink in.

I'm not trying to cripple the Wizard, my proposed changes have only buffed the non-caster classes. Arguing that casters are still potent isn't really relevant.

Incidentally, it's not "Leave a third level slot open for Fly" specifically, it's "Leave a Third level slot open for any of the 3rd level spells the Wizard needs."I disagree. I think it's more like "Leave a third level slot open for" Aaaah, aaaaahhhh, stop it from killing me and my party, please, why, oh why didn't I memorize a spell which might have saved us all!

See how that works? Leaving a spell slot open is fine in theory, but not so much in practice.

People who propose that Wizards leaving spell slots open in order to accommodate any given situation is a wonderful idea, they are also assuming that the rest of the party are able to handle any given situation where the Wizard is crippled by having less spells memorized. And this only proves the point that a Wizard needs a party to survive.

eggynack

2014-03-17, 05:32 AM

The 5th level Wizard can do any of those things. And when they do it, they are potent. I've said so, so there is no argument here. But once they do so, they have spent that spell. Without the options available out of Core, they are limited by their spells per day. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this for it to sink in.
And you've never explained it. What does that even mean? Are you saying that wizards don't have spell slots out of core? Cause they do, and not many more than they do in core. Like, maybe you'll get a focused specialist, but those aren't hyper-common, or you could pull a domain wizard with elf generalist for one extra spell above specialization, but you still have slots. Also, the 5th level wizard can do these things, and when they do them they're potent, but they're still potent afterwards. Because they have a lot of spell slots.

I'm not trying to cripple the Wizard, my proposed changes have only buffed the non-caster classes. Arguing that casters are still potent isn't really relevant.
And it didn't buff them enough.

I disagree. I think it's more like "Leave a third level slot open for" Aaaah, aaaaahhhh, stop it from killing me and my party, please, why, oh why didn't I memorize a spell which might have saved us all!
You did memorize that spell. Because, once again, a lot of slots.
Seriously, the 18 intelligence specialist is packing 12 slots above cantrips.

People who propose that Wizards leaving spell slots open in order to accommodate any given situation is a wonderful idea, they are also assuming that the rest of the party are able to handle any given situation where the Wizard is crippled by having less spells memorized. And this only proves the point that a Wizard needs a party to survive.
They're not so much crippled as they are slightly inconvenienced.

TuggyNE

2014-03-17, 06:39 AM

I think it's more like "Leave a third level slot open for" Aaaah, aaaaahhhh, stop it from killing me and my party, please, why, oh why didn't I memorize a spell which might have saved us all!

See how that works? Leaving a spell slot open is fine in theory, but not so much in practice.

People who propose that Wizards leaving spell slots open in order to accommodate any given situation is a wonderful idea, they are also assuming that the rest of the party are able to handle any given situation where the Wizard is crippled by having less spells memorized. And this only proves the point that a Wizard needs a party to survive.

The problem with this analysis of "Wizard dies screaming whenever they are below 90% filled spell slots" is, of course, the seemingly obvious observation that most Wizards end the day with most of their slots expended. And not screaming and on fire. So, since the last encounter (which they probably started with about 40% spells or in many cases much less) obviously failed to kill them, why would any given encounter do so if they have at least that many spells prepared?

No, it's generally safer and more flexible to load up a sampling of useful spells that should be enough to handle the next encounter (whatever it may likely be) and a bit over, and then fill in slots as needed to maintain this capability when time allows. This way, if fly is needed twice, there's a pretty good chance of actually being able to cast it twice, rather than being stuck with magic circle against evil or lightning bolt or something.

Stella

2014-03-17, 01:23 PM

And you've never explained it. What does that even mean? Are you saying that wizards don't have spell slots out of core? Cause they do, and not many more than they do in core.I'm not sure why this requires explaining, but I'll try if you insist.

Spell slots are spell slots, Core or non-Core. You have me there, clever boy. But wait! Out of Core there are so many ways to extend the duration of a spell that spell slots can become merely a limit on how many spells a Wizard might have active at the same time. I won't even try to go into the details of how this can be done, the char-op weenies are so much better at this than I that I'm happy to leave it up to them to describe how a Wizard can, given access to all the splatbooks, can have a handy batch of spells active for days on end.

You did memorize that spell. Because, once again, a lot of slots.
Seriously, the 18 intelligence specialist is packing 12 slots above cantrips.Really? The 5th level Wizard who left one of their 2 3rd level spell slots open did memorize the spell which saves themselves and their party from an encounter? How does 2 translate into "a lot of slots", in your world? Oh, wait, it's 3 if the Wizard gives up 2 schools. So, now it's "only" 1/3 of their most potent spells that you are suggesting they leave unmemorized so that they can replace a skill the other members of their party can supply for free.

Really? Does it require being impotent in order to become omnipotent? Taken to the extreme in order to prove a point, the best Wizard would appear to be the one who memorized no spells at all, so that she could always be ready to adapt to the situation at hand. But ah, unfortunately, those situations don't always allow for the time required for the wave form to collapse and the spells to actually be selected. The cat is dead 50% of the time, you just don't know it until you open the damn box.

And this is why char-op threads are fail. You can never convince someone who can craft every situation into their best advantage that there might be a situation where their theory of Wizardly godhood might be challenged. All they need to do is yell out "Fly!" or whatever spell might solve one problem, and ignore the fact that there might be other problems coming down the road.

Dr.Gara

2014-03-17, 03:25 PM

And this is why char-op threads are fail. You can never convince someone who can craft every situation into their best advantage that there might be a situation where their theory of Wizardly godhood might be challenged. All they need to do is yell out "Fly!" or whatever spell might solve one problem, and ignore the fact that there might be other problems coming down the road.

If char-op threads are fail, why have you been so aggressively anti-optimization? If, as you say, wizards lack the abilities they are said to have, why does the system need any re balancing at all? You are contradicting yourself, substantially, and continuously. Which is it: Are wizards over powered because they have too much variability in ability, or are they not overpowered because they have spell slots? You can't have it both ways.

eggynack

2014-03-17, 03:52 PM

I'm not sure why this requires explaining, but I'll try if you insist.

Spell slots are spell slots, Core or non-Core. You have me there, clever boy. But wait! Out of Core there are so many ways to extend the duration of a spell that spell slots can become merely a limit on how many spells a Wizard might have active at the same time. I won't even try to go into the details of how this can be done, the char-op weenies are so much better at this than I that I'm happy to leave it up to them to describe how a Wizard can, given access to all the splatbooks, can have a handy batch of spells active for days on end.
You do get more efficient slot usage, but not to an incredible degree outside of really high optimization, and it's still a limited resource.

Really? The 5th level Wizard who left one of their 2 3rd level spell slots open did memorize the spell which saves themselves and their party from an encounter? How does 2 translate into "a lot of slots", in your world? Oh, wait, it's 3 if the Wizard gives up 2 schools. So, now it's "only" 1/3 of their most potent spells that you are suggesting they leave unmemorized so that they can replace a skill the other members of their party can supply for free.
They have more than three spells, because first and second level spells are still incredibly significant at level 5. We're talking stuff like silent image, glitterdust, and alter self. And jump+climb does not equal fly. There's some argument about how equivalent rogue skills are to wizard stuff, like open lock as compared to knock, but this is not the same situation. There is no equivalency here. You might be able to solve a couple of the problems that fly does, but you're not supplying flight for free, because you're not supplying flight at all.

Really? Does it require being impotent in order to become omnipotent? Taken to the extreme in order to prove a point, the best Wizard would appear to be the one who memorized no spells at all, so that she could always be ready to adapt to the situation at hand. But ah, unfortunately, those situations don't always allow for the time required for the wave form to collapse and the spells to actually be selected. The cat is dead 50% of the time, you just don't know it until you open the damn box.
No, the best wizard is one who is prepared for a situation that comes out of nowhere, by having most of your slots prepped, while still having a couple of slots un-prepped, so that you can deal with long term problems. Just because silent image is good, doesn't mean you should prep nothing but silent image.

And this is why char-op threads are fail. You can never convince someone who can craft every situation into their best advantage that there might be a situation where their theory of Wizardly godhood might be challenged. All they need to do is yell out "Fly!" or whatever spell might solve one problem, and ignore the fact that there might be other problems coming down the road.
We've done a lot of analysis of this stuff, and it's pretty much all revealed that a wizard can deal with a number of problems in a day without running out of slots. You don't always need the exact right solution for every problem, so you can often throw a polymorph or summons into a situation and call it good enough. A wizard with half their spells remaining can still deal with most situations, and a wizard with a quarter of their spells remaining can still deal with quite a lot of situations. Because spells are versatile. It only takes one or two spells to solve an encounter, and there are usually about four encounters in a day, though there's room for more. A wizard can handle themselves.

Stella

2014-03-17, 09:48 PM

If, as you say, wizards lack the abilities they are said to have, why does the system need any re balancing at all?You put words in my mouth. That's known as arguing against a straw man.

I never said Wizards are not powerful. I've only said that without access to splatbook spells, feats, races, prestige classes, etc, etc. that the typical "Wizard always wins" char-op foolishness doesn't always apply. This results from the very attempt at balance which I have suggested, and this is why more balancing may not be required.

There is no contradiction there except that which you have invented.

They have more than three spells, because first and second level spells are still incredibly significant at level 5.
[snippage]

You don't always need the exact right solution for every problem, so you can often throw a polymorph or summons into a situation and call it good enough. A wizard with half their spells remaining can still deal with most situations, and a wizard with a quarter of their spells remaining can still deal with quite a lot of situations. Because spells are versatile. It only takes one or two spells to solve an encounter, and there are usually about four encounters in a day, though there's room for more. A wizard can handle themselves.If you read the OP, you'd know that spells like Polymorph have been nerfed down to a reasonable level. Also, I find it amusing that you throw it out there as an solution when the situation being discussed was a 5th level Wizard, who wouldn't have the spell in the first place. That's rather typical of char-op discussions, where even things unavailable to the caster are throw out as ways they "win" against all other classes.

If you don't think I've gone far enough in the attempt to balance the classes, all you need to do is say so. And after that suggesting further measures might be helpful. Posts which only contribute "Wizards rule, every one else drools" aren't very helpful.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-03-17, 09:52 PM

Are there even enough Fighter feats in core to allow them to use all their bonus feats?

Vhaidara

2014-03-17, 10:04 PM

If you don't think I've gone far enough in the attempt to balance the classes, all you need to do is say so. And after that suggesting further measures might be helpful. Posts which only contribute "Wizards rule, every one else drools" aren't very helpful.

We have. Give mundanes open non-core access and a decent point buy. As has been discussed in other threads, the better the point buy, the better mundanes do in relation to casters.

EDIT: @ Jade Dragon: You could always take the WF line with Glaive, Spiked Gauntlet, and Longbow. The entire line.

eggynack

2014-03-17, 10:10 PM

If you read the OP, you'd know that spells like Polymorph have been nerfed down to a reasonable level. Also, I find it amusing that you throw it out there as an solution when the situation being discussed was a 5th level Wizard, who wouldn't have the spell in the first place. That's rather typical of char-op discussions, where even things unavailable to the caster are throw out as ways they "win" against all other classes.
First, the game exists at more levels than just five. Second, alter self is very much a thing. Polymorph is as summon monster, in that it covers a bunch of separate spells, ranging up to shapechange. Third, if there's a facet of your balance that's not visible, you should make it visible.

If you don't think I've gone far enough in the attempt to balance the classes, all you need to do is say so. And after that suggesting further measures might be helpful. Posts which only contribute "Wizards rule, every one else drools" aren't very helpful.
I have in a lot of ways. You generally respond by arbitrarily insulting the very forum you're posting in. Up to and including this point, you've been rather unwilling to accept even the possibility that you may be wrong about your understanding of the game. And you are, in fact, wrong.

FaiT

2014-03-17, 10:15 PM

If char-op threads are fail, why have you been so aggressively anti-optimization? If, as you say, wizards lack the abilities they are said to have, why does the system need any re balancing at all? You are contradicting yourself, substantially, and continuously. Which is it: Are wizards over powered because they have too much variability in ability, or are they not overpowered because they have spell slots? You can't have it both ways.

This, I've been reading this thread and I don't really understand the op. If the op is calling for more balance does that not neccesitate a percieved imbalance? But instead of admitance to such imbalance every single time its brought up we get "Spell Slots". Also why are we acting like the wizard will be level 5 forever? Every single spell they cast can be extremely potent and they just get more uses and much better spells as they level (as has been pointed out fighters have a decided lack of potent feats).

I also don't get the fascination with the spell "fly", a wizard has potent spells at every level the good ones can always bequeth an ability unto the wizard that is fundamentally unattainable by the fighter. How many uses of these abilties does the wizard need in one day? 5, 10, 20? because at some point he will have an answer for every situation and the spells to do it. Even before that, he'll have good substitutes that will get the job done because as has been stated spells are versatile.

I think the focus on fly is there because of the relation to the climb skill which isn't the same thing but is at least somewhat similar. What about every other amazing thing the wizard can do with a prepped spell, or an open spell slot, or a wand, or a scroll, or a staff or whatever? The fighter can fight. The argument being he can also contribute somewhat outside of combat, mainly by saying its not impossible to envision a scenario where climb is preferable. Maybe that's true once in a while...... for how long? level 7? 9?

I've never played a wizard. I have had the interesting experience of playing a custom flavored "Magic User" straight outta AD&D as interpreted by my Uncle (See homebrew rewrite). I got one spell a level and I could cast it once a day. If I wanted to cast a spell more than once I had to spend a learned spell at level up to "learn it again". And... most of the good spells were banned. So I, at least don't have any practical experience with optimization ......... and I can see clearly that the wizard as written in core still outclasses the fighter even with some extra feats and a few more skill points.

EDIT: And by "outclasses" I mean can utterly replace and make irrelevant in every way increasingly as they level.

eggynack

2014-03-17, 10:23 PM

EDIT: @ Jade Dragon: You could always take the WF line with Glaive, Spiked Gauntlet, and Longbow. The entire line.
True enough. Our noble core fighter certainly isn't going to be just unable to take bonus feats, though that would be an amusing result. It's pretty close to that though. I think we can count the fighter as being just unable to take more feats when they're taking a bunch of feats that do actual nothing. I think we can count the fighter as having far too many slots when they're taking a bunch of feats that do very little.

hemming

2014-03-17, 10:33 PM

I always start out a game planning to play a kind of iconic role and end up taking caster levels to do all things I want - I think it would be really cool to play in a game where all the classes had some spell progression (rogue spell list? I've never been satisfied w/ beguiler)

Pushing out spell progression for casters might help, but it is against the spirit of what you are going for I think (give other classes new stuff, not nerf existing classes)

I've been thinking about having my next game be E6 - more for a gritty feel than balance - but again, not really in the spirit of your attempt

What about adding new class abilities (w/ progression by level) for some of the other classes (in addition to your original suggestion)?

Edit: I always get sarcastic responses to this - but letting all classes use magical devices at no-check is useful. Prepare for extreme golf-bagging

What about moving up some existing progressions? Why so long for my rogue to hide in plain site?

Or treating some feats, combat actions, or even spells as class abilities and homebrewing progression

- i.e. Invisibility (x) number of times/day for rogue (spiderwalk for sure - all rogues should be able to spiderwalk at some point) - giving some fighter feats class ability progression is definitely an interesting idea to me

The idea of "charge" being a class ability that fighters naturally progress is kind of interesting as well (charge as an immediate action at some point? Improved versions of charge bonuses and related feats over time?)
- or even re-skinning with a progression that gives them better action economy (like a martial swift blade kind of thing)
- Jus trying to find ways they can have more opportunities to do what they are good at (hit it with a sword) and for them to have a better chance to interrupt enemy casting

I like the homebrewed progressions idea, but it is definitely a whole lot more homebrewing than your original suggestion

Hiro Protagonest

2014-03-18, 03:19 PM

EDIT: @ Jade Dragon: You could always take the WF line with Glaive, Spiked Gauntlet, and Longbow. The entire line.

No I meant with this new fighter who has about thirty of them. But yeah, considering that just for WF/WS line you've got 4x [number of weapons] feats right there, yeah I guess they do.

Duke of Urrel

2014-03-18, 09:44 PM

Some have protested that adding extra feats does little good when so many good feats require minimum ability scores as prerequisites.

There's a simple fix for that: Invent a feat that raises one ability score. For example:

Intensive Training [General]

Prerequisites: None

Benefit: You raise one ability score permanently by one point.

Special: You can take this feat up to six times. Each time, you must apply it to a different ability score.

Just a suggestion.

("But that's like six whole Wish spells!" Yes, this is like casting six Wish spells at the rate of one per level – or like using a much more generous point-buy system when play begins. The only difference is that this solution works gradually, rather than all at once, and utilizes the extra feats proposed by Stella.)

Seerow

2014-03-18, 09:46 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2014-03-18, 10:12 PM

There's a simple fix for that: Invent a feat that raises one ability score.
You mean I can spend a significant fraction of my total (normal) feats to boost all my ability scores by 1 point? Brilliant! (Seriously, this is incredibly weak. It'd be somewhat weak even if it was a +2 bonus that stacked with itself-- and then only casters are getting a significant benefit)

Zalphon

2014-03-19, 02:32 AM

I'd like to suggest my own fix tomorrow.

Edit: I intend to provide fixes for the following classes:

-Barbarian: Provide more out-of-combat effectiveness as well as in-combat versatility. This will be provided through class feature such as "Ravager" and "Terror of the Wilds".

Ravager: Bonuses applied to extraction of information from captured enemies.

Terror of the Wilds: Provides a few abilities to combat normally difficult enemies such as thunderous shouts that stun animals (e.g. flying mounts) and demoralize others.

-Fighter: Provide more out-of-combat effectiveness as well as in-combat versatility. This will be provided through class features such as "Tactical Analysis" and "War Stories"

Tactical Analysis: Allows the Fighter to examine the situation and make a command for another player that gives them an additional bonus to performing that command (e.g. a command such as "Flank Left" would grant increased speed when moving to flank left or a command such as "Focus Fire" would grant increased to-hit/damage on that one creature).

War Stories: The Fighter can use an ability much like "Suggestion" except that it involves an Intimidate Check vs. the Target's Will Save. If it succeeds, the listener is struck in awe (or perhaps fear) of the Fighter and is vulnerable to a "Suggestion" from the Fighter.

-Paladin: Provide more out-of-combat effectiveness as well as in-combat versatility. This will be provided through class features such as "Save Thy Brother" and "Divine Right". As well as modification of their spellcasting.

Save Thy Brother: The Paladin will be able to go out of turn to make a charge attack to intercept an attack and deal a counter attack. This is a full-round action and does deny him his turn.

Divine Right: The Paladin will be allowed certain allowances by his church due to his nature. Certain resources will be alotted to the Paladin and the Paladin will receive a +4 to Diplomacy Checks when dealing with any Lawful Good creature.

-Monk: Provide in-combat effectiveness with Full Base Attack Bonus and some useful, LEVEL-APPROPRIATE abilities.

-Ranger: Provide in-combat effectiveness and out-of-combat effectiveness with class features such as the following:

Two-Blade or Archery Path: Gain more feats in their selected path.

Natural Predator: Gain bonuses to hide and move silently with access to nature and appropriate survival checks.

Voice of the Beast: Will be able to speak with animals and give directions to them (e.g. tell the crow to follow the man and report where he went or have the jailor's dog fetch the keys).

-Rogue: Provide in-combat effectiveness and out-of-combat effectiveness with class features such as the following:

Improved Sneak Attack: Sneak attack works on any creature and has a 1.5x Damage Modifier on any creature normal Sneak Attack would affect.

Anatomical Knowledge: A Rogue's Critical Range increases by 1 (e.g. 20/X4 becomes 19-20/X4. 17-20/X2 becomes 16-20/X2.)

Back Alley Diplomacy: A Rogue can make an unarmed attack on a helpless victim and applies the amount of damage as a bonus to his next intimidate check with the victim.

Twist the Blade: Critical attacks by rogues leave targets forced to make a DC 10 + 1/2 Damage Dealt Fortitude Save to avoid becoming stunned for 1d4 rounds. Success means they are dazed for one round.

All: All will likely be improved with the following increases.

+2-4 Skill Points Per Level
+1 or more Hit Die Size
+Potential Bonus Feats

Zalphon

2014-03-19, 11:23 AM

Zalphon's Fighter

D10 HD.
4x(4+INT Modifier) Skills at First Level.
4+INT Modifier skills per level.
Proficient with all light, medium, and heavy armor.
Proficient with all simple and martial weapons.

Level 1: Tactical Analysis +1

Level 2: War Stories 1/Day

Level 4: Tactical Analysis +2; War Stories 2/Day; Brotherhood

Level 5: Improved Strike

Level 6: War Stories 3/Day; Plowshares to Swords

Level 8: Veteran's Aura; Tactical Analysis +3; War Stories 4/Day

Level 10: War Stories 5/Day; Stave Off Death 1/Week

Level 12: War Stories 6/Day; Tactical Analysis +4; Bloody Art

Level 14: War Stories 7/Day

Level 15: Amputation; Stave Off Death 2/Week

Level 16: War Stories 8/Day; Tactical Analysis +5

Level 18: War Stories 9/Day

Level 20: The King of the Killing Fields; War Stories 10/Day; Tactical Analysis +6.

Tactical Analysis: Allows the fighter to issue commands to other players and NPCs. If they should obey, they get the Fighter's Tactical Analysis Bonus to perform it.

Move: The Fighter gives the command to move into a position. Every +1 is equal to a +5 Movement Bonus. Expires after one turn.

Attack: The Fighter orders the party to attack something. They gain to-hit/damage bonuses for 3+Fighter's CHA Modifier rounds.

Rally: The Fighter orders the party to rally up. They gain his bonus as a morale bonus to all saves and armor class. Lasts for 3+Fighter's CHA Modified rounds.

War Stories: The Fighter can tell a chilling tale of his time in a battle and make an Intimidate Check. Or he can tell a story of great heroics against all odds and make a Diplomacy Check. If it passes, the subject is left horrified or amazed respectively and is subject to one "Suggestion" (as the Bard feature of the same name) from the Fighter.

Brotherhood: While the Fighter is in the party, everyone within thirty of feet of another party members gains a bonus to all saves = 1/2 the Fighter's Charisma modifier and immunity to fear and +6 to resist charm or compulsory effects to harm a fellow party member.

Improved Strike: Your weapon is treated as one size larger (Maximum Colossal) for terms of damage and is treated as one of the properties:

Level 5: Silvered

Level 10: Cold Iron

Level 15: Adamantine

Plowshares to Swords: The Fighter can train someone (or groups) to 1st level warrior in two week's time. This is most effective when fighting large scale battles and needing reinforcements.

Veteran's Aura: Those who are friendly to the fighter gain a +2 to hit/damage when they can see his resolve.

Stave Off Death: The Fighter sees death for himself and his brothers and issues an order that seems to make those around him amazingly powerful in their darkest hour. With this, he orders everyone to refuse to accept death and show no mercy.

Those affected, including himself, gain the following bonuses that stack with everything:

Full Base Attack Bonus for the duration of Stave Off Death
+Fighter's CHA Modifier in temporary hit points for every hit die.
+Fighter's CHA Modifier to To-Hit/Damage
Effects of the Diehard Feat.
One additional attack per round.

At the end of Stave Off Death, the entire party must make Fortitude saves (DC 10 + Fighter's CHA Modifier) or pass out from fatigue as soon as the encounter ends. If they succeed, they become exhausted.

Bloody Art: On Critical Hits, the Fighter can choose to cause hemorrhaging which deals 1d6+1/2 Fighter's Strength Modifier damage for 1d6 rounds. This forces all enemies nearby to make a will save (DC10 + 1/2 Fighter's Level + Fighter's CHA Bonus) or be shaken until the end of the encounter.

Amputation: When a fighter critical hits, he may choose to go for 1/2 Damage (after damage is rolled) and amputate a limb (of his choosing).

King of the Killing Fields: The Fighter is legendary as a battlefield commander and a warrior. His very presence gives the following bonuses in combat. This stacks with all other abilities.

Allies always gain:

+Fighter's Charisma Modifier to Hit/Damage.
+Fighter's Charisma Modifier to All Saves/AC as a morale modifier.

Enemies Always Lose:

Fighter's Charisma Modifier to Hit/Damage.
Fighter's Charisma Modifier to all Saves/AC as a morale penalty.

The Fighter's Critical Range expands by 2 (e.g. 19-20 becomes 17-20) and Critical Multiplier expands by 1 (X2 becomes X3). This always applies to the Fighter, regardless of weapon.