Duelist 3.5

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. So I think the duelist is really cool. Problem is, after looking it over, it doesn't seem that good, especially for a prestige class. And I was wondering what you guys thought of it. Is it worth taking and all that. And as always, go nuts.

[Flickerdart]

The duelist is literally a waste of the paper it was printed on.

[(Un)Inspired]

It's just about as bad as anything in the entire world could be.

If you want a class that can do the same kind of things only sixty to seventy thousand times better take a look at the warblade and factotum base classes.

Both are incredible warriors that have out of combat awesomeness and use Int to fight better.

[Darkweave31]

Very much meh. It fills the role of a character archetype that can generally be done in more optimal ways (daring outlaw swashbuckler, warblade).

[Kaeso]

From what I've seen, a duelist is pretty much a direct downgrade from a rogue. You're better off taking 10 rogue levels than taking the duelist prestige class.

[TheIronGolem]

If you can find (and convince your DM to let you use) the 3.0 version of the Duelist, it gets to be somewhat decent. Failing that, the Pathfinder version is at least less terrible.

But the 3.5 version? Crippled. Precise Strike comes online way too late and scales way too slow to matter. Canny Defense lacks the former problem but has the latter in spades; by the time you've gotten your full INT bonus to AC your enemies' to-hits have long since made it pointless. Improved Reaction is kind of nice since it stacks with Improved Initiative, but can't carry the rest of the class by itself.

It's aggravating, because it's a thematically awesome PrC that totally fails to deliver what it sells you. It's the Monk of prestige classes.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You're better off using the int-focused line of feats (or Iron Tactician if you're a warblade and don't want to commit that heavily, or want more immediate benefits if you aren't starting at a level where you can get Genius Maneuvers) in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10640962&postcount=6).

[Particle_Man]

It's aggravating, because it's a thematically awesome PrC that totally fails to deliver what it sells you. It's the Monk of prestige classes.

In fact, given that a lot of both Monk and Duelist abilities don't work in armour, one could synergize that disability, embrace the madness and play a monk/duelist.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In fact, given that a lot of both Monk and Duelist abilities don't work in armour, one could synergize that disability, embrace the madness and play a monk/duelist.

You mean MADness because it adds Int to the list of needed abilities.

[gorfnab]

In fact, given that a lot of both Monk and Duelist abilities don't work in armour, one could synergize that disability, embrace the madness and play a monk/duelist.
The feats Carmendine Monk and Kung-Fu Genius sets most of the Monk abilities to Int based so that would help somewhat.

Here is a Duelist build I came up with some time ago. It focuses on fighting defensively.

Human or Strongheart Halfling
1. Swashbuckler - Deadly Defense (CS), Combat Expertise, B: Weapon Finesse
2. Cobra Strike (UA) Decisive Strike (PHBII) Monk - B: Dodge
3. Cobra Strike (UA) Monk - Carmendine Monk (CoV), B: Mobility
4. Swashbuckler
5. Swashbuckler
6. Thief Acrobat - Combat Reflexes
7. Thief Acrobat
8. Thief Acrobat
9. Thief Acrobat - Einhander (PHBII)
10. Thief Acrobat or Warblade
11. Warblade or Duelist
12. Warblade or Duelist - Ironheart Aura (ToB)
13. Duelist
14. Duelist
15. Duelist - Robilar's Gambit (PHBII)
16. Duelist
17. Duelist
18. Duelist - Stormgaurd Warrior (ToB)
19. Duelist
20. Duelist

The Monk and Swashbuckler levels (levels 1 through 5) can be switched around to taste. I personally like Swash 1/ Monk 2/ Swash 2.

Levels 10 through 12 can be rearranged depending on your needs. The current setup gives you Improved Evasion and Uncanny Dodge at these levels. However if you don't need Improved Evasion take one less level of Thief Acrobat and move the first level of Warblade to level 10. If you don't need Uncanny Dodge don't take the 2nd level of Warblade and instead go into Duelist a level early. If you don't need either abilities take Warblade at level 10 and enter Duelist at level 11.

If flaws are available pick up EWP: Broadblade Shortsword (CAdv, pre-errata version if possible) or Versatile Unarmed Strike (PHBII) and Snap Kick (ToB) (may need to rearrange later feats). If traits are available pick up Cautious (UA).

Items:
Vest of Defense (MIC)
Bracers of Blocking (Dragon 322)
Broadblade Shortsword (CAdv) (pre-errata version if possible) or Rapier with the Defensive Surge (MIC) enhancement.

[Particle_Man]

What else? Oh, versatile unarmed strike lets your unarmed strikes count as piercing, for duelist fun.

[VoxRationis]

I have to agree with this general line of thought. I'm not a huge optimizer, but by itself the class-level-scaling AC bonus makes it a dubious choice. I mean, if you're completely barred from wearing armor, is it really too much to ask that you have the Int to AC all at once? You still probably won't be a match, AC-wise for the plate-armor fighter, but at least you won't have to be as dramatically worse for the intervening levels.
The class does dovetail nicely with the Swashbuckler class (Complete Warrior), however, though still not enough to put it on par with fighters. (With regard to that class, I must ask: Why, why would a swashbuckler-type character have good Fortitude saves and poor Reflex saves? Yes, they do get a consolation prize in Grace, but it's still not enough to catch up to a rogue's Reflex save score.) I once played a Swashbuckler/Duelist, and found that I had to heavily invest in AC-boosting items. I don't know how well the class would have worked: it was Tomb of Horrors, and we mostly dealt with traps. The one combat encounter we had was a four-armed gargoyle that wouldn't have been easy even if I had been playing a normal fighter.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

In a super-low-op game you could go something like Feat Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue) 4/ Swashbuckler 3/ Duelist 8/ Tempest or similar 5 with a feat chain like Crescent Moon or just dual-wield Broadblade Shortswords and do decently. Stagger the Feat Rogue and Swashbuckler levels to keep up your skill ranks. Crescent Moon with an Elven Thinblade (RotW) instead of a Longsword would be both thematically fitting and decently useful. I'd get Improved Weapon Familiarity (CW) with an Elf of the Gray or Fire variety instead of EWP.

Note that Broadblade Shortswords (CV) were errated to only add +1 AC when fighting defensively or taking a -2 for Combat Expertise, but considering you can do both to gain the benefit twice (Dodge bonuses always stack) you would take a -6 to hit for +20 AC (+2 defensively, +2 combat expertise, +1 Tumble ranks, +4 swords, +3 extra for ITWD, +8 Duelist 8). Granted that's at level 15, but at level 3 you would be taking a -2 to hit for +5 AC with TWD, or -6 to hit for +10 AC, which isn't horrible. It's no Thri-Kreen wielding four pre-errata Broadblade Shortswords taking -2 to hit for +8 AC at 3rd level, but it's still decent.

[Big Fau]

You mean MADness because it adds Int to the list of needed abilities.

Can I kick people into holes while screaming loudly in the wrong accept for my role?

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you want to play a Duelist, make a Rogue/Swashbuckler with the Daring Outlaw feat.
If your DM's cool, maybe you can even convince him to let you use the arcane stunt variant and still qualify for Daring Outlaw (which requires the worthless Grace class feature arcane stunt replaces).

[Xerlith]

Well, if you say duelist, I think
Carmendine Decisive Strike Martial Monk 2/Swashbuckler3/Warblade3/Swordsage1/Warblade+13

with Shadow Blade, Daring Outlaw, Craven and Assassin's Stance. The martial maneuvers provide some ways of flat-footing your opponents, you get unarmored int-to-AC, int (and dex) to damage, can parry your opponents' attacks, can even throw a Distracting Ember to sneak attack in their faces.

Grab a shortsword and go to town.

[Particle_Man]

Duelist might be an NPC prestige class. You know, the guy in the bar that talks tough before your character feeds him his teeth. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

Duelist might be an NPC prestige class. You know, the guy in the bar that talks tough before your character feeds him his teeth. :smallbiggrin:
None of the abilities are really visible ones though.

[Seerow]

None of the abilities are really visible ones though.

Eh if it's an NPC class then he'll be a CR10 Warrior10/Duelist10, and have a pretty obviously high AC for a guy who is unarmed.

The players might believe he's a 10th level monk.

[TheIronGolem]

It's 3rd-party Pathfinder rather than 3.5, but for anyone trying to scratch the thematic itch that the Duelist fails to, take a look at Adamant's Swashbuckler (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/swashbuckler). A solid Tier 4, in my opinion.

[ericgrau]

The closest I can think of to a build that's even functional at all might be monk 2 / whatever / duelist X who TWF kama trips. You simply ignore the precise strike ability and fight with two kamas. Still not so sure it's worth the pre-reqs.

[Snowbluff]

I was dissatisfied with it as a one-handed fighter and the lack of White Raven PrCs, so I wrote one but never release it. :smalltongue:

[Seerow]

If you're looking for alternatives, I reworked the Duelist a couple years back, and it was pretty well received. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196750

[Piggy Knowles]

Hmm...

OK, everyone has agreed that the duelist is a bad class. BUT, I feel like taking a break from the current Iron Chef, so why not play around with making a totally different bad class good?

Assuming no multiclassing penalties are in effect, what about...

Kalashtar, Feat Rogue 2/Warblade 8/Duelist 10
1. Feat Rogue1- Dodge, Mobility
2. Feat Rogue2- Weapon Finesse
3. Warblade1- Combat Expertise
4. Warblade2-
5. Warblade3-
6. Warblade4- Path of Shadows
7. Warblade5- Ironheart Aura
8. Warblade6-
9. Duelist1- Dancing with Shadows
10. Duelist2-
11. Duelist3-
12. Duelist4- Improved Combat Expertise
13. Duelist5-
14. Duelist6-
15. Duelist7- Stormguard Warrior
16. Duelist8-
17. Duelist9-
18. Duelist10- Elusive Target
19. Warblade7-
20. Warblade8-

+19 BAB, 7th-level maneuvers. Dancing with Shadows is what really makes this build.

If you start with 16s in Int and Dex, and max them both out whenever possible, then fighting defensively and using Improved Combat Expertise, you'll be looking at an unarmored AC of 62, before adding in deflection bonuses, shield bonuses, natural armor bonuses, etc. - all of the good stuff you should be nabbing from items.

But wait, won't that mean you'll be taking a -23 to your attacks? Well, yeah, for starters. However, Dancing with Shadows and Stormguard Warrior change that.

So, start by fighting defensively, but use Combat Rhythm from Stormguard Warrior to make all your attacks touch attacks. Figure with a Dex of 32 (16 +5 levels +5 tome +6 gloves) and a weapon that you've GMW'd up to +5, that gives you an attack bonus of +35/+30/+25/+20. Other items can get that higher, but still, that's a good set of numbers to base things off of. Go ahead and take that hefty -23 to attacks - it sucks, but it'll mean an AC in the sixties, most of that as dodge bonuses that apply to everything. Since you're making touch attacks, there's a pretty good chance you'll still hit at least twice, charging up Combat Rhythm.

Next round, use the Graceful Lunge option from Dancing with Shadows. That means that your first attack gets a +23 bonus to its attack roll, thanks to your serious combat expertise usage on the previous round. Go ahead and feed that all back into Imp Combat Expertise, though - we want to maintain as high an AC as possible. Still, that means your first attack basically gets its penalty removed for Imp Combat Expertise. Also, each successful touch from last round means you're dealing +5 bonus damage this round.

Now, next round, you've used combat expertise for two consecutive rounds. That means you can use the Lingering Defense option from Dancing with Shadows. That means that you keep all your defensive boosts from using Improved Combat Expertise and fighting defensively... but you don't take the attack penalties!

So, the net result is:

ROUND 1: Fight super-defensively. Take -23 to attacks, but you're making all touch attacks this round.
ROUND 2: Fight super-defensively. Your first attack effectively gets no penalty for attacking defensively, though the rest do. Any successful hit gets +5 bonus damage for each successful attack from last round.
ROUND 3: Fight super-defensively, without taking the associated attack penalties.

In other words, you maintain that ridiculous AC throughout the fight, but you only actually take the full penalty on that first round (and that round, you're making touch attacks).

This doesn't make duelist a good class, of course. It's still an awful class. But that's about the best I could do for coming up with a decent duelist build on a moment's notice...

[Seerow]

The problem with all of that is, it's Dancing with Shadows (Kalashtar specific feat) and Stormguard Warrior doing all of the heavy lifting. And if you're focusing on fighting defensively/combat expertise, there's better routes you can go, that don't require running around without armor.

[HunterOfJello]

The Duelist is a good example of an awesome name with an interesting character idea that was executed horribly. I would love it if you could play a light or armorless prestige class that fights with a light blade in one hand and is still as effective in a party as a sneak attacking rogue or power attacking barbarian. However, since this is not the case whatsoever, it's best skipped.

If you want to play a one-handed melee character who dominates in battle, then go look at the Snowflake Wardance Bard with Dragonfire Inspiration.

[Blackhawk748]

If you want to play a one-handed melee character who dominates in battle, then go look at the Snowflake Wardance Bard with Dragonfire Inspiration.

Or a Daring Outlaw.

Honestly the Duelist is just plain lousy as the Swashbuckler does it better and you could get Int to AC with a monk variant, IIRC.

I really wish the class was better, i really do, and with a bit of mucking about with it you could make it decent, not great, but decent.

Edit: Having looked at it again, i think letting the abilities work while in Light armor would help as you could then just leave the scaling Int to AC bonus. Have Precise Strike come online at lvl 2 and then increase every even lvl after that maxing out at 5d6. These aren't huge changes but they would help it be decent.

[Piggy Knowles]

The problem with all of that is, it's Dancing with Shadows (Kalashtar specific feat) and Stormguard Warrior doing all of the heavy lifting. And if you're focusing on fighting defensively/combat expertise, there's better routes you can go, that don't require running around without armor.

Yes and no. Elaborate Parry from Duelist accounts for +10 of that AC total; combined with Canny Defense and a reasonably high Int, it means a total of +18-20 to AC coming from duelist.

But yeah, obviously Dancing with Shadows and Stormguard Warrior are doing the heavy lifting on the above-posted build. I just figured that Elaborate Parry was the most interesting class feature that the duelist gets, and that if I had to fight defensively to activate it, I'd prefer to be doing it in style using Dancing with Shadows, so that at least I'm not totally screwing myself offensively.

[Flickerdart]

Arcane Duelist (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20030224a) is a much better duelist than the Duelist. Sure, it still sucks, but at least it manages to hit the two main ideas behind the archetype:

Deceptively hard to hit: A duelist's first deal is being able to dodge blows while being unarmoured. The standard duelist gets...Intelligence to AC, for whatever reason, and the ability to turtle slightly better. The arcane duelist gets CHA to AC (much more appropriate for a flashy bravo) plus blur and mirror image, without compromising his ability to attack.

Unparalleled skill with a rubbish weapon style: In addition to dodging blows, a duelist is an artist with his sword. The standard duelist gets +2d6 damage. The arcane duelist can make even a non-masterwork sword magic, can make incredibly accurate hits (when wielding a rapier in both hands, that's basically free 1:1 Power Attack damage since you can back-convert half of the 2:1 damage bonus into a to-hit bonus), can stack critical range increases, and has a capstone that any swordsman would be envious of.

The other stuff the standard duelist gets (essentially Improved Init, Mobility, Lightning Reflexes, and Deflect Arrows) are all equivalents of rubbish bonus feats that can't even qualify him for stuff. Acrobatic charge is the only useful thing in the class...or it would be if Weapon Finesse users had a reason to charge.

[VoxRationis]

Aren't you prohibited from wielding a rapier in two hands for Power Attack and the like?

[Flickerdart]

Aren't you prohibited from wielding a rapier in two hands for Power Attack and the like?
No. The only restriction is "you can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage" but if that's not why you are wielding it, that rule doesn't come into play.

[VoxRationis]

:eek: [makes gasps for breath, as though having been stabbed in the abdomen]

That is one of the most rules-lawyery thing I have ever heard. I know no one cares about the spirit of the rules on these forums, but doesn't it seem odd to you that you can't use the strength of your other arm for 1/2 your Strength bonus in damage, but can use it for another times your base attack bonus?
And even that's dependent upon one reading of the way that sentence can be interpreted.
You are interpreting it as "You cannot do this IF this is why you're doing it."
I think of it as "You cannot do this thing and here is the common reason you would try."
Not that your interpretation is inherently wrong—there's plenty of merit in it—but still...

[Flickerdart]

I know no one cares about the spirit of the rules on these forums
:smallsigh:

doesn't it seem odd to you that you can't use the strength of your other arm for 1/2 your Strength bonus in damage, but can use it for another times your base attack bonus?
Not remotely, given that the two are completely different sources. One is a general "if you have more hands on a weapon you can put more of your strength into it" rule - grab a big ol' board and slam it into guys to see how that works. But Power Attack is a feat - a specialized technique that trades accuracy for brutal impact, and is a more effective maneuver than usual when used two-handed.




And even that's dependent upon one reading of the way that sentence can be interpreted.
You are interpreting it as "You cannot do this IF this is why you're doing it."
I think of it as "You cannot do this thing and here is the common reason you would try."
Not that your interpretation is inherently wrong—there's plenty of merit in it—but still...
Nobody writes like that - if it were an example then it would be written something like "you cannot fight with a rapier two-handed, so you cannot benefit from 1 1/2 your Strength bonus" or "you cannot gain extra benefits, such as 1 1/2 Strength bonus, when wielding a rapier two-handed."

[VoxRationis]

But in both cases, you're getting additional damage directly from using the weapon two-handed. Which is ineffective when using a rapier.

[Flickerdart]

But in both cases, you're getting additional damage directly from using the weapon two-handed. Which is ineffective when using a rapier.
No. You're getting extra damage due to two-handedness, but one case it's a standard benefit of weapons and in the other case it comes as a side benefit of using Power Attack, which is not "direct" at all. Don't try and expand specialized rules to cover things they weren't meant to; it's not like PHB writers weren't aware of Power Attack being a thing when designing the rapier.

[Sir Chuckles]

To quote the SRD:

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you. You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage.
Emphasis mine.
Says nothing about Power Attack. It specifically talks only about the bonus strength damage, not the bonus Power Attack damage.

That said and cleared up, I'd will say that the first character I ever played ended up as a Human Afflicted Weretiger Rogue 4/Sorcerer 12/Duelist 5. Up until I hit my 4th and forward spell levels, I wasn't doing too well. I was doing better than our support Bard, damage-wise, but we all acknowledged his aid and the fact that he saved my life a total of 7 times due to his buffs (But wait! The Bard is giving me +2 to X!). At later levels, I was only doing well due to my liberal application of magic mixed with my cheesy ways of getting off huge amounts of sneak attack damage, even with it being so low.

The big gripe I had with the Duelist is how restrictive it was. Everything boiled down to "Only one weapon, nothing else."
In fact, the current campaign I'm running is using many "iconic" characters from our group, reworked and/or rebuilt, and brought up to the Epic level party. I completely replaced the Duelist levels with Arcane Duelist in one edition of Veradux Scipii, who is actually meant as the final boss for reasons I'd have to write an entire essay to explain.
I'd honestly go as far as to say that it's worse than a Monk, because a Monk you can dip in for certain abilities or at least work with. The vanilla Duelist does nothing for any class that enters it.

[Vertharrad]

Weird considering that when wielded 1-handed you get less damage with PA(which implies it is going by the same general rule...which you can't do with certain weapons).

[Sir Chuckles]

Weird considering that when wielded 1-handed you get less damage with PA(which implies it is going by the same general rule...which you can't do with certain weapons).


If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.
Emphasis Mine.

[VoxRationis]

Normal weapon, wielded two-handed:
+1/2 your Strength bonus over normal damage, due to applying more force by use of two hands.
Normal Weapon, one handed, with Power Attack:
+1x some number, up to your BAB.
Normal weapon, two-handed, with Power Attack
+1/2 your Strength bonus, +2x whatever number you choose, up to your BAB, due to applying more force by using two hands.

That is a jump of nearly 100% the damage bonus (depending on your Strength score, which probably isn't too great if you're a duelist), entirely due to your deciding to use a second hand with that power attack. That seems pretty direct to me. And you think it makes sense that that +1/2 doesn't get to apply for rapiers, but that much larger bonus, which comes also because you can apply more force when you use two hands to swing something, does get to apply?

The PHB wasn't perfectly edited, which is to be expected from a 300-page book that needed to set up terminology used in countless follow-up books and anticipate new developments in those books, plus vet every description, particularly in the earlier, fluff-heavy chapters, for technical usage of language. But if you're barred from doing one thing, doing the same thing on a greater scale just because you weren't explicitly told not to seems a juvenile and intentional misreading of the rules.
"Jimmy, you can't just walk into a room and shoot a person."
[Jimmy walks into a room and explodes two people.]
"But you never said I couldn't explode two people! You said I couldn't shoot a person! Don't try to expand specialized rules to cover things they weren't meant to!"

[Sir Chuckles]

Hmmm, Vox, you seem to be leaving the realm of RAW and RAI, and going into RAII.
"As I Interpret"

You could certainly say that a Rapier can't do a two-handed power attack, but it doesn't say that anywhere. It certainly doesn't help the poor PrC either way, nor really any other build.
Honestly, if that's going to be the case, just drop the Rapier and pick up an Elven Thinblade. That doesn't have the "no 1.5 strength for two-handing" thing at all. Nor does the Swordcane.

[Flickerdart]

Vox, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the quantity of bonus damage somehow matters at all, but have failed to explain why. Since the crux of the argument seems to be "if 1.5 STR isn't allowed, PA should be not allowed even more because it's more damage" this is something you need to justify first.

[StreamOfTheSky]

:eek: [makes gasps for breath, as though having been stabbed in the abdomen]

That is one of the most rules-lawyery thing I have ever heard. I know no one cares about the spirit of the rules on these forums...

Pot, meet kettle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337258)?

Is it only rules-lawyery when a martial character's the one trying to exploit things? Ironic faux-injury given that other thread you started, though.

[Big Fau]

:eek: [makes gasps for breath, as though having been stabbed in the abdomen]

That is one of the most rules-lawyery thing I have ever heard. I know no one cares about the spirit of the rules on these forums, but doesn't it seem odd to you that you can't use the strength of your other arm for 1/2 your Strength bonus in damage, but can use it for another times your base attack bonus?
And even that's dependent upon one reading of the way that sentence can be interpreted.
You are interpreting it as "You cannot do this IF this is why you're doing it."
I think of it as "You cannot do this thing and here is the common reason you would try."
Not that your interpretation is inherently wrong—there's plenty of merit in it—but still...


You say it like that matters. "Oh no, Finesse melee characters can get Power Attack bonuses, it's the end of the world!" Compared to using Planar Binding, killing what you call, and then reanimating it as a Corpse Creature (or some other form of undead that retains special abilities), this isn't even on the radar.

Let melee have a nice thing.

[Sith_Happens]

The Duelist attempts to support the least effective style of melee combat, and largely fails at doing so. On the scale of "bad classes," that's a pretty tough act to follow.

[Metahuman1]

Pot, meet kettle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337258)?

Is it only rules-lawyery when a martial character's the one trying to exploit things? Ironic faux-injury given that other thread you started, though.

I'm curious now Vox, do you Ban Tome of Battle?



Look, Rules as written is stupid and silly all the time in this system. And rules as written for mundanes and melee's are often written for "realisum", which, because of the way casters are dont the system Can Not Support No Matter How Hard It Tries!!!

Those same rules, like the Rapier being in capable of gaining 1.5 Str mod, and your house rule, cause right now that's what it is, of can't get 2-1 PA, that is based on the RAW Can't get 1.5 str mod, was written by people who clearly had never studied real martial arts and swordsmanship and weapons schools and skills from any culture, and just pulled it out of previous D&D editions and things they'd seen in movies and video games and TV. And those previous D&D editions also didn't do a whole lot of looking into real world historical sword work or kung fu or the like.


A rapier is a thrusting weapon originally intended to pierce armor, of course there were techniques to use both hands with it to get more force, because in the time period a standard d&d game tries to emulate, when armor was not uncommon, you were trying to poke a whole through it, the body of the man inside it, and then out the back side through the armor a second time! You wanted all the force you could get!

[Snowbluff]

Poke a hole through it? Nay.

Through chain-mail, kind of. Rapiers are not heavy enough to penetrate plate. You can, however, slip the blade in between the chain or plates.

[VoxRationis]

My thread was based on a spell which includes things like "plane ," "immovable" and "immune to damage of all kinds" in its description. When you put absolute statements like that in the wording of a [I]magic spell, it is only natural that someone comes up with a creative use of it that subverts the spell's intended function. That's wholly different from what you're doing.

And don't cry "Why can't melee have nice things?" whenever someone doesn't like your exploits. Playing the X card is a cheap enough tactic when X is actually an oppressed or disenfranchised group; when it's a facet of a roleplaying game, it's just petty. I'm not some kind of caster-supremacist bigot; I just don't like your interpretation of the rules.

And metahuman1, I don't know what "because of the way casters are dont the system CAN NOT SUPPORT NO MATTER HOW HARD IT TRIES" means. Could you please clarify? I don't mean to sound like a linguistic purist, but I literally can't understand a sentence like this.

The rapier is an anachronism in the game; rapier-wielders in real life wouldn't be trained to fight armored foes (though armor was used at the time rapiers were, it wasn't prevalent, and in any case the rapier was never a battlefield weapon) and would not be trying to exert maximum force in that way. The way in which a rapier is used is one-handed, full stop. The grip is not adjusted for the possible use of two hands; in many cases it cannot fit two hands in it, due to a cage or basket around the hilt. The fighting style that comes, in D&D terms, as part of rapier proficiency does not use two hands. Using a sword two-handed like that reduces your reach by a considerable margin and opens more of your body to attack, which is not what you want when fighting with a rapier, which is primarily a thrusting weapon. Thrusting weapons designed to be used two-handed are generally polearms or weapons of similar length.

And lastly, no one I know has Tome of Battle, but I would not allow it even if they had, because it flagrantly violates a maxim stated in the DMG of not coming up with new classes that do better at something than the core classes they emulate and because the flavor and mechanics of the classes therein have no place in most of my settings (or my friends' and families' settings, or many published settings).

[Snowbluff]

I'm finding this all very ironic."Voice of reason." LoL

[(Un)Inspired]

I don't think something can be anachronistic in DnD.

It's not set at any point in real time...

I mean, it's not even trying to emulate a single point in history.

People swung swords around at each other from like 1600 BC to WWI. Which point is DnD supposed to take place in; cause I see made up weapons, fighting styles, superstitions and armours sort of slightly a little bit pulled from all across those 3500 years.

[Seerow]

My thread was based on a spell which includes things like "plane ," "immovable" and "immune to damage of all kinds" in its description. When you put absolute statements like that in the wording of a [I]magic spell, it is only natural that someone comes up with a creative use of it that subverts the spell's intended function. That's wholly different from what you're doing.


So what you're saying is RAI only matters for non-casters? That's what your argument here sounds like. Because this is a very clear case of the RAW being able to do exactly what is being described, yet you are insisting everyone here is being a metagamer completely ignoring the spirit of the rules for going with that. Meanwhile you are continuing to defend a MUCH more vague abuse of a spell that has a much larger potential impact on game balance, simply because it's magic.

[Sir Chuckles]

My thread was based on a spell which includes things like "plane ," "immovable" and "immune to damage of all kinds" in its description. When you put absolute statements like that in the wording of a [I]magic spell, it is only natural that someone comes up with a creative use of it that subverts the spell's intended function. That's wholly different from what you're doing.
I wouldn't exactly call it creative. And, really, you were trying to push past the rules far harder than a very simple x=y, x=/=z situation.


And don't cry "Why can't melee have nice things?" whenever someone doesn't like your exploits. Playing the X card is a cheap enough tactic when X is actually an oppressed or disenfranchised group; when it's a facet of a roleplaying game, it's just petty. I'm not some kind of caster-supremacist bigot; I just don't like your interpretation of the rules.
Fair, but the point still stands.


The rapier is an anachronism in the game; rapier-wielders in real life wouldn't be trained to fight armored foes (though armor was used at the time rapiers were, it wasn't prevalent, and in any case the rapier was never a battlefield weapon) and would not be trying to exert maximum force in that way. The way in which a rapier is used is one-handed, full stop. The grip is not adjusted for the possible use of two hands; in many cases it cannot fit two hands in it, due to a cage or basket around the hilt. The fighting style that comes, in D&D terms, as part of rapier proficiency does not use two hands. Using a sword two-handed like that reduces your reach by a considerable margin and opens more of your body to attack, which is not what you want when fighting with a rapier, which is primarily a thrusting weapon. Thrusting weapons designed to be used two-handed are generally polearms or weapons of similar length.
You can use a rapier in two hands. It wasn't common in French-style fencing, but it was used in Scottish Highland fencing. Many people don't realize that the proper way to two-hand a sword was not to have both hands on the grip, but to have one on the grip and the other above the hilt.
In addition, there's a misconception that a rapier could only be thrust forward, like in the sport. It was certainly the more lethal approach, but a rapier is bladed.

It's poor form to apply real-life ideas to D&D. I could spend a decade poking holes in it, but that would kill the fun; the thing we're (hopefully) all here for.


And lastly, no one I know has Tome of Battle, but I would not allow it even if they had, because it flagrantly violates a maxim stated in the DMG of not coming up with new classes that do better at something than the core classes they emulate and because the flavor and mechanics of the classes therein have no place in most of my settings (or my friends' and families' settings, or many published settings).

How do the mechanics of a class not fit in your setting when a Monk or Cleric do? I can understand the flavor being an issue, but the ToB flavor is possibly the most versatile and adaptable of many classes. And the DMG is refering to homebrew, not official classes in published books, otherwise everything in every book outside the PHB would be, in some way, "flagrantly violating" that maxim.

[VoxRationis]

How do you hold a rapier above the hilt? That space is already used for the primary hand; it's called the ricasso. I am aware of how one holds a two-handed sword.

Also, I should probably have clarified about the Monk. The Monk gets additional demerits in my book for being completely out-of-place in a traditional D&D setting, which is generally based on medieval Europe, with a few extra things added in (like rapiers) or left out (like gunpowder). I don't generally allow it in my campaigns; no one mourns it because in addition to my players understanding my desires for coherent campaign settings, it's not that great a class. Clerics I try to keep to a minimum as well, though they aren't as completely out of the genre as monks are.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Shall we make a list for you of all the other things in D&D that aren't from medieval Europe so you can run a purer, truer game, then?

[Big Fau]

And lastly, no one I know has Tome of Battle, but I would not allow it even if they had, because it flagrantly violates a maxim stated in the DMG of not coming up with new classes that do better at something than the core classes they emulate and because the flavor and mechanics of the classes therein have no place in most of my settings (or my friends' and families' settings, or many published settings).

That entire section is little more than a recommendation for DMs home-brewing classes, not for WotC's own books. Even better, it was printed long before WotC had even the faintest idea of what class balance was. The section assumes Core is balanced, but it really isn't.

As for fluff, it is entirely up to the player how his character's abilities interact with your world. Vetoing an entire book because the (admittedly lackluster) flavor is out of place is a really bad idea.

And your comment about the books not fitting in most published settings: WotC only published 2 settings for 3.5. Others exist, but are 3rd party. And the Bo9S fits into each of the official settings (there's at least one article detailing how to include the Bo9S fits into FR, and it is absolutely trivial to fit it into Eberron).


Honestly, the idea of banning the book itself for not fitting your campaign's fluff is bad. Not letting a player use the class because his backstory/character mindset doesn't fit your view of the world is more reasonable, but you need a damn good explanation.

[VoxRationis]

Shall we make a list for you of all the other things in D&D that aren't from medieval Europe so you can run a purer, truer game, then?

Yes, well, if I wanted to give you a Christmas present making your style of game, I would just cut out everything that's not numbers or mechanics.

[Snowbluff]

Yes, well, if I wanted to give you a Christmas present making your style of game, I would just cut out everything that's not numbers or mechanics.

Stormwind Fallacy.

[Big Fau]

Yes, well, if I wanted to give you a Christmas present making your style of game, I would just cut out everything that's not numbers or mechanics.

Nice ad hominem. Care to read the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636), cause that addresses your issue with us?

You criticize our use of RAW over RAI, but you yourself use RAW to do something that is very clearly not RAI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337258) (and not even governed by RAW). The big difference is our "exploit" doesn't require the DM to make up rules, while your's does.

[VoxRationis]

Ah, yes. Your latter point I was about to mention, but my computer failed at an inopportune time and I lost my response. In my post, I am taking an effect, used precisely with the properties intended, and apply it in an unusual way (I depart from how the creators of the game intended it to be used).
In this post, they take an effect and apply it with properties that I am arguing were not intended to be used that way, and they ignore why a rule is in the book in order to do so.

As for the Stormwind Fallacy, I was not making a blanket statement, but one addressed to StreamOfTheSky, who advocates retention or discarding of things in the books based upon their mechanics, rather than their appropriateness to a milieu. This is the very definition of "roll-playing." You can make a well-role-played and powerful character; I am not disputing this, and thus calling "STORMWIND FALLACY" against me is a strawman argument. You are equating my argument with a different, but superficially similar one, and then attacking the latter.

[squiggit]

And don't cry "Why can't melee have nice things?" whenever someone doesn't like your exploits.
How is it an exploit? As pointed out, it's not particularly strong.

More importantly the sentence you're decrying as being "Cheesily interpreted" goes out of its way very explicitly to make a single distinction. If the RAI of the text is what you claim it was that entire half of the sentence would be there for no reason at all.

Yes, RAW vs RAI gets very stupid at times, but when a bit of text goes out of its way to explicitly call out a single condition when that text would otherwise be completely unnecessary, I think reading it as it says (it's not even rules-lawyering or twisting the context because it's exactly what the text says) is perfectly valid.


And lastly, no one I know has Tome of Battle, but I would not allow it even if they had, because it flagrantly violates a maxim stated in the DMG of not coming up with new classes that do better at something than the core classes they emulate and because the flavor and mechanics of the classes therein have no place in most of my settings
Yes, but unlike the classes they're based on they're actually relatively decent.

Banning them for the crime of competently executing a previously failed design goal seems... odd.

[Karnith]

And your comment about the books not fitting in most published settings: WotC only published 2 settings for 3.5.
Well, three, actually, though Dragonlance saw approximately zero official support after the DLCS came out.

Also, Oriental Adventures may sort of count, and ToB fits right in there even if you keep all the silly metaplot things about the Nine Swords.

[Big Fau]

Ah, yes. Your latter point I was about to mention, but my computer failed at an inopportune time and I lost my response. In my post, I am taking an effect, used precisely with the properties intended, and apply it in an unusual way (I depart from how the creators of the game intended it to be used).
In this post, they take an effect and apply it with properties that I am arguing were not intended to be used that way, and they ignore why a rule is in the book in order to do so.

2 things:


There are no rules governing how a two-dimensonal plane made of a nearly-indestructible force interacts with a creature running into it face-first. In fact, there's no rules governing running into a 3D object at full-sprint with the Run feat and a base land speed of 400ft. There is a rule for falling, but the rule only governs what happens if you go in a vertical direction and collide with a horizontal surface under normal gravity (and there is a rule governing subjective gravity).
The rules for gaining extra damage from your Strength score and from two-handed Power Attacks are separate entities with their own exceptions. For obvious reasons (namely that WotC won't answer questions about this edition any more), we cannot verify RAI and are forced to work with RAW when debating an issue where there is no DM. Since the OP has not weighed in on this subject, we are working from a theoretical stance and must resort to practical optimization standards.


That last line is the key: PO standards only take into account what would be reasonable to include, and in a vast majority of cases your stance on this matter (that rapiers aren't eligible for the +50% bonus from Power Attack's 2-hander clause) isn't one that most DMs/Players posting in this thread agree with.

As far as balance is concerned, there is no reason to disallow Raipers from gaining that extra damage. From a flavor perspective it can go either way (since Power Attack can represent aiming at weak points, and it is easier to aim with both hands than it is to aim with only one).

[VoxRationis]

{{scubbed}}

[Seerow]

If it represented aiming better, there would be a base attack bonus or dexterity prerequisite. You're taking refluffing to a level where it isn't even supported by the mechanics.
As for your other objections, I'm sorry I assume I'm playing with an intelligent DM, not a text adventure program that can't extrapolate from rules or make judgement calls. To take the "run into a wall with a move speed of 400 feet" example, I would hardly think it likely that a person who accepts that falling at 300 feet per round would inflict 20d6 damage would then rule that moving at a greater speed would not.

So you're saying that walking at your normal movement speed into a wall should cause the same damage as falling 30ft onto a hard surface, since you're moving the same amount of distance in a round?

[Big Fau]

If it represented aiming better, there would be a base attack bonus or dexterity prerequisite. You're taking refluffing to a level where it isn't even supported by the mechanics.
As for your other objections, I'm sorry I assume I'm playing with an intelligent DM, not a text adventure program that can't extrapolate from rules or make judgement calls. To take the "run into a wall with a move speed of 400 feet" example, I would hardly think it likely that a person who accepts that falling at 300 feet per round would inflict 20d6 damage would then rule that moving at a greater speed would not.

And I take offense to the concept that I'm not an intelligent DM because I allow rapier-users to get extra damage from Power Attack. A concept your post heavily implies.

As for running into a wall, the BLS rules are not the same as terminal velocity. If we apply common sense, it's reasonable to assume that a character's BLS is a combination of the distance they can move, how fast they can accelerate/decelerate, their ability to withstand the friction caused, and any number of laws of physics that play into a person running that I'm not aware of.

D&D doesn't care about the laws of physics beyond a certain point because no DM alive can possibly integrate those laws into the rules system and remember them at all times.

You can house rule all you want, but facts are that Power Attacking Rapiers work and running into a wall at top speed does nothing. One is more reasonable to allow than the other (one buffs melee, the other buffs casters; you tell me which is more reasonable).

[VoxRationis]

So you're saying that walking at your normal movement speed into a wall should cause the same damage as falling 30ft onto a hard surface, since you're moving the same amount of distance in a round?

Incorrect. The fall takes place in less than a round, since you fall as much as 100 feet in the first round of falling.
What does BLS stand for?

[Big Fau]

Incorrect. The fall takes place in less than a round, since you fall as much as 100 feet in the first round of falling.
What does BLS stand for?

Base Land Speed.

[VoxRationis]

Thank you.

[Metahuman1]

My thread was based on a spell which includes things like "plane ," "immovable" and "immune to damage of all kinds" in its description. When you put absolute statements like that in the wording of a [I]magic spell, it is only natural that someone comes up with a creative use of it that subverts the spell's intended function. That's wholly different from what you're doing.

And don't cry "Why can't melee have nice things?" whenever someone doesn't like your exploits. Playing the X card is a cheap enough tactic when X is actually an oppressed or disenfranchised group; when it's a facet of a roleplaying game, it's just petty. I'm not some kind of caster-supremacist bigot; I just don't like your interpretation of the rules.

And metahuman1, I don't know what "because of the way casters are dont the system CAN NOT SUPPORT NO MATTER HOW HARD IT TRIES" means. Could you please clarify? I don't mean to sound like a linguistic purist, but I literally can't understand a sentence like this.

The rapier is an anachronism in the game; rapier-wielders in real life wouldn't be trained to fight armored foes (though armor was used at the time rapiers were, it wasn't prevalent, and in any case the rapier was never a battlefield weapon) and would not be trying to exert maximum force in that way. The way in which a rapier is used is one-handed, full stop. The grip is not adjusted for the possible use of two hands; in many cases it cannot fit two hands in it, due to a cage or basket around the hilt. The fighting style that comes, in D&D terms, as part of rapier proficiency does not use two hands. Using a sword two-handed like that reduces your reach by a considerable margin and opens more of your body to attack, which is not what you want when fighting with a rapier, which is primarily a thrusting weapon. Thrusting weapons designed to be used two-handed are generally polearms or weapons of similar length.

And lastly, no one I know has Tome of Battle, but I would not allow it even if they had, because it flagrantly violates a maxim stated in the DMG of not coming up with new classes that do better at something than the core classes they emulate and because the flavor and mechanics of the classes therein have no place in most of my settings (or my friends' and families' settings, or many published settings).

Oh, where do I even begin....

Let's start with the sentence you can't understand, fair enough, that was a typo. replace the word dont with the word done. As in, how it's done. As in, I'll show you how it's done, that's how it's done, so on. Because of the way casters are done, in the 3.5 system, realism in the game is a completely unachievable goal with out a total system overhaul.

Regarding your next point, I call shenanigans. Rapiers were developed at the height of the knights in armor period, before the match lock and Canon made them irrelevant. And if you study acutal, period swordsmanship manuals, form more then one or two country's, you will see a technique that translates in english being taught and written about called half swording, where, you guessed it, you grabbed the blade part way down, and use that to get more control, and, guess what, more force, on your attacks, so you could punch through the chain mail and leather/padding when you caught them between the plates. Or so you could bash harder with the guard/pommel. Or just to change grips and open up a number of different attacks and defenses. This is drawn from Italian, Scottish and German Longsword Fencing techniques that did the same, just with broad swords. The Technique was also use with Claymores.

But let's get past that.

You are screaming about bonus damage on a raper and tome of battle and the monk being unacceptable and implying that anyone who thinks otherwise and uses them is incompetent to run games in this system, playing wrong, and as soon as your called on this position you've assumed, your insist it's the right position while denying the calling out at the same time.

Meanwhile, your also arguing that by no other virtue then it's a spell, then it's magic from a caster class, that a spell designed explicitly to mildly hinder battle field movement or choke a door way, should be allowed and works as an auto kill spell that doesn't offer any form of save, require an attack roll, or allow anything that makes you immune form actual death effects and spells to protect you. That it's a case of "I cast it and you die and that's it, I won thanks for playing."

I'm forced to draw one of two conclusions:

Either you don't have the first concept of what system balance is and have literally failed to see it when you where stairing right at it.

Or.

You have the single biggest Hard On for casters since SKR and Cook, and are in fact advocating Caster Supremacy but refusing to acknowledge it. And you might have denied that before when it was JUST the Rapier 2:1 power attacking, but throwing in your stance on Tome of Battle and the Monk, the freaking monk, and your dedicated defense of tactics like turning wall of force into an instant win button for the wizard it was never suppose to be but refusing to let the marital's have the things they need to funtion on grounds of fluff, and screaming that refluffing is bad for them but being fine with Wall of Force Kills it if it's moving, I'm actually finding this one the more likely one but I'm trying really freaking hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Hiro Protagonest]

marital's

There shouldn't be an apostrophe there.

Also, whenever I see that misspelling of martial it amuses me much more than rouge. :smallamused:

[Sir Chuckles]

Alright, the two biggest disconnects I'm seeing here are that 1) Vox believes that "standard D&D setting" is a low-fantasy medieval Europe, when it's actually a high-fantasy specific to no real world location setting. The former is Vox's preference, that few agree on due to how restrictive it is.
Vox, do you also ban other things that don't fit into your preconceived "norm"? Such as, but not limited to, punching daggers, scimitars, banded mail, two-bladed swords, repeating crossbows, composite longbows, shuriken, sai, good dragons, and dinosaurs?

The second misconception is that you can consistently apply real-world "logic", physics, and concepts to the game. Some can, it's a given. Drowning does not heal you. On the other hand, applying loose concepts to concepts that are just as loose will end up with nothing but discussions like this one. Neither side will ever gain any ground until the other begins using veiled insults. From there, it's downhill for both sides and will just end up being mod-food.

Vox, you play in a significantly different setting, manner, and interpretation of the rules that what is conventional for this board. It's good to see things from other perspectives, but when the new perspective is rigid to the point of stubbornness, all sides have to tread lightly.

Also, as for the Rapier idea, they did use rapier two-handed. It certainly wasn't a French style, but I, as someone who has trained in it, can guarantee that it was a Scottish style used with claymores, broadswords, rapiers, and occasionally the larger breeds of dirk.

[Flickerdart]

If it represented aiming better, there would be a base attack bonus or dexterity prerequisite.
Today I learned that all to-hit mechanics in the game use Dexterity and no other ability score.

[Hiro Protagonest]

composite longbows

Actually that would be stupid, since it's the only way of simulating a European Warbow, but by the given fluff it is a stupid unrealistic weapon with no reason (i.e. it's not unique in its function).

Today I learned that all to-hit mechanics in the game use Dexterity and no other ability score.

That's what Exalted does. That also makes Dexterity god stat (along with Appearance, which you can basically describe your way into using for all social actions).

[Sir Chuckles]

Actually that would be stupid, since it's the only way of simulating a European Warbow, but by the given fluff it is a stupid unrealistic weapon with no reason (i.e. it's not unique in its function).

Good catch! European bows, while mostly self bows, did emulate some traits of a composite bow. I'm a huge weaponry dork at heart.
As written, however, it's not. And, to the person we're all talking about this fine Monkday (Duelist is the Monk of prestige classes, after all...), the fluff is made of concrete, and we have no pickax.
I have a strong feeling that he would ban more than half the characters in my sig.

[(Un)Inspired]

Sir Chuckles, I want to run a game for your Neanderthal Ragemage so badly.

[VoxRationis]

Regarding your next point, I call shenanigans. Rapiers were developed at the height of the knights in armor period, before the match lock and Canon made them irrelevant.

And the taser was invented during an era of assault rifles and main battle tanks; that doesn't make it an anti-armor military weapon.


This is drawn from Italian, Scottish and German Longsword Fencing techniques that did the same, just with broad swords. The Technique was also use with Claymores.
A Claymore or broad sword or longsword, even the smaller swords by that name, is not a rapier. It does not function in the same way. They have broader, stronger blades than a rapier (and no, I'm not confusing the rapier with an epee; the rapier is substantially stronger than an epee but still has a thinner, weaker blade than a broadsword or longsword). Fencing is not necessarily the art of swordplay with an epee or rapier in all contexts.




You are screaming about bonus damage on a raper and tome of battle and the monk being unacceptable and implying that anyone who thinks otherwise and uses them is incompetent to run games in this system, playing wrong, and as soon as your called on this position you've assumed, your insist it's the right position while denying the calling out at the same time.

Meanwhile, your also arguing that by no other virtue then it's a spell, then it's magic from a caster class, that a spell designed explicitly to mildly hinder battle field movement or choke a door way, should be allowed and works as an auto kill spell that doesn't offer any form of save, require an attack roll, or allow anything that makes you immune form actual death effects and spells to protect you. That it's a case of "I cast it and you die and that's it, I won thanks for playing."

I'm forced to draw one of two conclusions:

Either you don't have the first concept of what system balance is and have literally failed to see it when you where stairing right at it.

Or.

You have the single biggest Hard On for casters since SKR and Cook, and are in fact advocating Caster Supremacy but refusing to acknowledge it. And you might have denied that before when it was JUST the Rapier 2:1 power attacking, but throwing in your stance on Tome of Battle and the Monk, the freaking monk, and your dedicated defense of tactics like turning wall of force into an instant win button for the wizard it was never suppose to be but refusing to let the marital's have the things they need to funtion on grounds of fluff, and screaming that refluffing is bad for them but being fine with Wall of Force Kills it if it's moving, I'm actually finding this one the more likely one but I'm trying really freaking hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, for one thing I'm not screaming, since I can at least keep the composure to type properly. I have not once talked about the damage value of sexual assault or making things harder for newlyweds.
Secondly, disliking the Monk is not indicative of a hidden bias against mundane characters, since a monk: a) has supernatural abilities and is thus a lot less mundane than a fighter or rogue; and b) is a terrible class, acknowledged objectively as such by almost this entire forum.
Thirdly, my objection to the rapier/Power Attack idea was not that it was unbalancing, but that it was based on an intentional oversight of the reasons behind a rule. You are creating a strawman argument, "This shouldn't be allowed because it's too powerful," and attacking that rather than my actual argument. There are many ways to create a mechanically better character, mundane or magical, than someone who relies on Power Attack with a rapier.
Fourthly, I was not saying that the Tome of Battle was imbalanced compared with the game as a whole, but overshadowed the original martial classes at their intended functions, which is true and accepted by this forum, or so it appears, to me, seeing as every build suggestion that incorporates fighting includes several levels of one of the Tome of Battle classes. Furthermore, my other argument, on a different note but on also regarding Tome of Battle, is that discarding all "fluff" or descriptive text regarding something in order to strip it to its core numerical or mechanical definitions is not role-playing but a convoluted dice game. What do you get when you strip all mechanics from something in favor of description? You get a rules-light to no-rules, story-driven RPG (which I am not in favor of, incidentally). When you do the reverse? You get the opposite, a game entirely composed of mechanical rules and with no story, description, or role-playing necessary.
Fifthly, my comment about the text adventure game was in relation to the rapier/Power Attack rules, not the Wall of Force; I apologize for its having cast a wider net than intended. I was also not saying that the other people posting in this forum were unintelligent, but rather that I was making my comments under the assumption that the hypothetical DM I would be presenting these rules interpretations to would be capable of interpretation, extrapolation, and creative thought, as opposed to the opposite, which would obviate the DM's role as referee for the rules in the first place.
Sixthly, metahuman1, I do not appreciate your attempts to inflate your argument via vulgarity and dismissively worded peremptory statements.

[squiggit]

I'm sorry I assume I'm playing with an intelligent DM
There are many things I'd call a DM who makes up rules to nerf one of the worst PrCs (and overall playstyles in general) arbitrarily. Intelligent is not high on that list.


that it was based on an intentional oversight of the reasons behind a rule
You've yet to explain why the rule goes out of its way to explicitly explain that it only effects one thing when you claim the RAI is that I effects all two handed actions. Again, half the sentence is pointless if what you're saying is true, it's some pretty insane rules lawyering on your part

[Snowbluff]

Sir Chuckles, I want to run a game for your Neanderthal Ragemage so badly.

I so would want to join that game.

[(Un)Inspired]

I so would want to join that game.

What would you build?

[Vhaidara]

Sir Chuckles, I want to run a game for your Neanderthal Ragemage so badly.

Can I join? I've got a couple of character ideas backlogged that I've wanted to run.

Also, Vox, the thing that we are saying with stripping out the fluff of things isn't that we strip out the fluff and leave it bare. We strip out the fluff, and make fluff that we like more.

Example: Runesmith (Races of Stone) is a prestige class for arcane casters who want to use heavy armor. It is restricted to dwarves. However, why should dwarves get a complete monopoly on being able to use runic magic to cast in armor? So I removed that rule.

Example 2: Warlocks (Complete Arcane) are required to be either Chaotic or Evil. I see no reason why someone who's powers are very capable of being from a pact that their great grandparent made should have their alignment impacted by that. Why can't they be Neutral? or NG? or LN? LG is the most reasonable argument I can see for being made, but I still don't buy it.

[(Un)Inspired]

Can I join? I've got a couple of character ideas backlogged that I've wanted to run.


Sure what do you want to bring in? Hopefully not a duelist...

[VoxRationis]

It's pretty well-established that Wizards of the Coast made some failures in their production of the early-period third edition rules, or even for the 3.5 rewrite. Things like monks not having weapon proficiency, technically, with their defining method of attack. Now, that's just ridiculous. It's plainly intended for them to be able to use unarmed strikes at their full (if mediocre) base attack bonus. It's just that the developers forgot that they listed "unarmed strike" as a simple weapon and didn't include it in the full list of the simple weapons the monk is proficient with.
I am arguing that this is a similar oversight. The developers plainly intended that you can't get the extra damage from Strength to rapiers due to two-handed use. I am arguing that they forgot that there are other ways in which the use of two hands would boost damage and did not anticipate that people would want to use them, even when they were barred the other .5 Strength bonus.

As to the person who says they've been trained to use rapiers two-handed:
How does that work? Where do you grasp the weapon with your off hand? Do you strike like that, or just parry? I can get broadswords, but I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your example.

Keledrath, both of your examples are of removing a piece of fluff. Maybe not all of it, but some of it. That's not an example of substitution.

[Metahuman1]

And the taser was invented during an era of assault rifles and main battle tanks; that doesn't make it an anti-armor military weapon.


A Claymore or broad sword or longsword, even the smaller swords by that name, is not a rapier. It does not function in the same way. They have broader, stronger blades than a rapier (and no, I'm not confusing the rapier with an epee; the rapier is substantially stronger than an epee but still has a thinner, weaker blade than a broadsword or longsword). Fencing is not necessarily the art of swordplay with an epee or rapier in all contexts.




Well, for one thing I'm not screaming, since I can at least keep the composure to type properly. I have not once talked about the damage value of sexual assault or making things harder for newlyweds.
Secondly, disliking the Monk is not indicative of a hidden bias against mundane characters, since a monk: a) has supernatural abilities and is thus a lot less mundane than a fighter or rogue; and b) is a terrible class, acknowledged objectively as such by almost this entire forum.
Thirdly, my objection to the rapier/Power Attack idea was not that it was unbalancing, but that it was based on an intentional oversight of the reasons behind a rule. You are creating a strawman argument, "This shouldn't be allowed because it's too powerful," and attacking that rather than my actual argument. There are many ways to create a mechanically better character, mundane or magical, than someone who relies on Power Attack with a rapier.
Fourthly, I was not saying that the Tome of Battle was imbalanced compared with the game as a whole, but overshadowed the original martial classes at their intended functions, which is true and accepted by this forum, or so it appears, to me, seeing as every build suggestion that incorporates fighting includes several levels of one of the Tome of Battle classes. Furthermore, my other argument, on a different note but on also regarding Tome of Battle, is that discarding all "fluff" or descriptive text regarding something in order to strip it to its core numerical or mechanical definitions is not role-playing but a convoluted dice game. What do you get when you strip all mechanics from something in favor of description? You get a rules-light to no-rules, story-driven RPG (which I am not in favor of, incidentally). When you do the reverse? You get the opposite, a game entirely composed of mechanical rules and with no story, description, or role-playing necessary.
Fifthly, my comment about the text adventure game was in relation to the rapier/Power Attack rules, not the Wall of Force; I apologize for its having cast a wider net than intended. I was also not saying that the other people posting in this forum were unintelligent, but rather that I was making my comments under the assumption that the hypothetical DM I would be presenting these rules interpretations to would be capable of interpretation, extrapolation, and creative thought, as opposed to the opposite, which would obviate the DM's role as referee for the rules in the first place.
Sixthly, metahuman1, I do not appreciate your attempts to inflate your argument via vulgarity and dismissively worded peremptory statements.

A tazer is about as much onto an assault rifle as an escrema stick is too a sword.

And that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that sometimes, a technique that works for one works for another, that the origins are a certain way, and that certain techniques for dueing something do exist. Burden of proofs on you at this point dude, to prove that they don't.

Firstly, that's a figure of speech were I'm from. Maybe it's not were your from so I'll let that one pass.

Secondly, explaining that your holding it's fluff against it, particularly since now by your own admission you know that the monk is in fact sub par mechanically but your still gonna hold the fluff against it, you don't help your argument dude.

Thirdly, As has been mentioned, your tieing yourself into knots on this point with out meeting burden of proof.

Yes, they do, that was the idea. By the time Wizards published Tome of Battle, they'd figured out that there core melee classes were seriously, insurmountably, lacking, and needed to be functionally replaced. They were, however, at the time, trying to save face of the original designers who had the massive caster crushes, so instead of just introducing a book full of AFC's and a subsystem to base the AFC's off them, they published replacement classes. The Tome of Battle had three of them. Other books had others, PHB 2 and Complete Arcane and Hero's of Horror had arcane replacements, Dungeonscape had the Factotum, a Rouge Replacement. Tome of Battle, Tome of Battle had replacements for Fighter, Paladin, Monk, and to a lesser extent, Barbarian, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Ninja and Ranger. They over shadow them, cause there better. There Balanced Classes, were as the previous classes were not balance, and fell on either the "too weak" or "too strong" sides of balance.

Fifthly, since your apologizing, I'll let that one go, but I would like to point out that the tone of your writing there gives me the feeling that when you say that, your also thinking that the DM would then obviously look at that rule and tell you your right and other are wrong.

Sixthly, Given some of the things you've said since you started posting in this topic, including the fact that you in the post I quoted blew off me and at least one other poster's point of having researched and in the other posters case trained in the techniques were talking about, you may wanna think about that.


Edit: People more then one has cited rapier being used two handed.

And as I explained, the technique was called half swording and you gripped the weapon by the blade, usually wearing heavy gloves or gauntlets and with lots of practice so that you didn't end up cutting yourself. It had several parrys and stabbing techniques as well as a number of pommel/guard striking techniques it opened up. Heck, if you look at the old German or Italian or Scottish manuals on sword work next to Japanese or Chinese Manuals on sword work/martial arts, you'll find there VERY similar once you get down to brass tac's and forget your preconceive notions.

So much so that if you did it you might even rethink your banning of tome of battle.

[Vhaidara]

Sure what do you want to bring in? Hopefully not a duelist...

Mostly depends on starting level/optimization level/allowed sources/party alignment.

I've been assembling a number of builds over the past few months with the help of the Playground, including an ubercharger, a murderhobo, a master of deception, a charlatan, Zorro, the 3 Musketeers, and Pimp Gambit.

[Sir Chuckles]

Mostly depends on starting level/optimization level/allowed sources/party alignment.

I've been assembling a number of builds over the past few months with the help of the Playground, including an ubercharger, a murderhobo, a master of deception, a charlatan, Zorro, the 3 Musketeers, and Pimp Gambit.

I've always wanted to play a Court Herald, but I've never been able to figure out how to weave it into a build.

We all have dozens of character in the back of our heads, from the lowly Goblin Fighter (Targeteer)/Ninja with Greatbow and spring-loaded gauntlet proficiency, to the theoretical teleporting Cleric in my sig. (Who TWF with a Halberd using haft strike and spinning halberd)

[(Un)Inspired]

Mostly depends on starting level/optimization level/allowed sources/party alignment.

I've been assembling a number of builds over the past few months with the help of the Playground, including an ubercharger, a murderhobo, a master of deception, a charlatan, Zorro, the 3 Musketeers, and Pimp Gambit.

Well the party is gonna be have a neanderthal ragemage in it so I'm say medium-low optimzation just to keep in in the ballpark.

Tell me about the master of deception and the pimp gambit

[squiggit]

That's a pretty bad comparison.

Monks don't have proficiency by omission. WotC forgot to include the rules or simply assumed it was a given and didn't think it needed to be mentioned.

The rapier text instead goes out of its way to specifically mention that it only effects strength bonuses. Again, the author chose to add additional text to explicitly make it clear that he was referring to a single mechanic. That's entirely different than forgetting to add something, because, again, if that section of the text was removed the weapon would functional you claim it does.

And you're telling us that we should ignore that text because Vox says so.

The thing is this isn't even RAW vs RAI anymore. Because the thing Vox is talking about isn't even implied in the text in question. If anything the text goes out of its way to make sure that it does work with power attack.

[Vhaidara]

Well the party is gonna be have a neanderthal ragemage in it so I'm say medium-low optimzation just to keep in in the ballpark.

Tell me about the master of deception and the pimp gambit

Pimp Gambit is basically Factotum with a focus on thrown weapons and throwing random stuff. The original one was an idea my friend had where you make it rain money. And murder.

The master of deception is a a changeling Factotum with a Marshal dip who focuses on being a conman. His one schtick in a fight actually relies on DM fiat allowing him to "draw" his hand. Yes, his thing is the dreaded Iiajutsu Backhand.

[VoxRationis]

Secondly, explaining that your holding it's fluff against it, particularly since now by your own admission you know that the monk is in fact sub par mechanically but your still gonna hold the fluff against it, you don't help your argument dude.

Thirdly, As has been mentioned, your tieing yourself into knots on this point with out meeting burden of proof.

Yes, they do, that was the idea. By the time Wizards published Tome of Battle, they'd figured out that there core melee classes were seriously, insurmountably, lacking, and needed to be functionally replaced. They were, however, at the time, trying to save face of the original designers who had the massive caster crushes, so instead of just introducing a book full of AFC's and a subsystem to base the AFC's off them, they published replacement classes. The Tome of Battle had three of them. Other books had others, PHB 2 and Complete Arcane and Hero's of Horror had arcane replacements, Dungeonscape had the Factotum, a Rouge Replacement. Tome of Battle, Tome of Battle had replacements for Fighter, Paladin, Monk, and to a lesser extent, Barbarian, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Ninja and Ranger. They over shadow them, cause there better. There Balanced Classes, were as the previous classes were not balance, and fell on either the "too weak" or "too strong" sides of balance.
Sixthly, Given some of the things you've said since you started posting in this topic, including the fact that you in the post I quoted blew off me and at least one other poster's point of having researched and in the other posters case trained in the techniques were talking about, you may wanna think about that.
I had not seen the post about the training when I typed the post you are quoting, because I was in the process of typing it and that brought me away from the thread-viewing page. Note that when I saw that post, I immediately inquired further into the matter.
You have seized onto monks in a way that is entirely inappropriate for this discussion. I dislike monks in my campaign settings and in the campaign settings of others that are based on a Western Medieval period. That has nothing to do with rapier usage or rule interpretation. You are mixing up your appeals to balance with a vehement and unnecessary defense of a class that is imbalanced in how weak it is, and I can't even fathom why that seems like a good argument to you. Let me make this clear:
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BALANCE. This build does not threaten my sense of game balance. This build is not something I believe would make all the other party members feel underwhelming, or stomp up and down on all the encounters. This build is objectionable to me for other reasons. Stop making this about something it's not.

I'm not going to build a martial character for you just to prove that I can make a better one than a power-attacking arcane duelist. This forum is filled with optimization threads; look through one if you want to find a melee build that is better than that.

[Snowbluff]

What would you build?

Evil spider druid, Binder or DFI, vampire savage progression Lifedrinker, Arcane Duelist, Domain Feat specialist, or any of the other dumb builds I have lying around.

[(Un)Inspired]

Evil spider druid, vampire savage progression, or any of the other dumb builds I have lying around.

Wait, is the evil spider also using the savage vampire progression? Cause I like the sounds of that.

[Big Fau]

Secondly, disliking the Monk is not indicative of a hidden bias against mundane characters, since a monk: a) has supernatural abilities and is thus a lot less mundane than a fighter or rogue;

That it is a terrible class I will not object, but this point I will: Every spellcaster in the game has abilities that are not mundane (by virtue of them being spellcasters), and that every mundane character in the game can have supernatural, spell-like, or even full-blown spells as abilities via feats, racial choice, or some other method. Do you also ban the Paladin and Ranger for having magical capabilities, or is there a double-standard occurring?

The Warblade, for example, is completely mundane. Barring 2 maneuvers, neither of which are required (although one is incredibly good), why are they banned in your game?

[Snowbluff]

Wait, is the evil spider also using the savage vampire progression? Cause I like the sounds of that.

I could do that. I would have like a gajillion LA or quite a few RHD (3 if awakened). :smalltongue:

MagicalBeast3/Swordsage3/VampireProg1/Souleater1/Lifedrinker.

[Metahuman1]

It had been mentioned by someone other then me before you posted a response too it that wasn't a dismissal.

And that's part of the point, your letting fluff run all the mechanics, and that hurts the mechanics if your not running a spell caster. The tome of battle classes are balance, your not disallowing them because there balanced, your doing it cause you don't like there printed fluff.

The only problem is that your doggedly sticking to fluff that actively nerfs melee all over the place, and actively encourages caster supremacy by it's very nature.

[(Un)Inspired]

I could do that. I would have like a gajillion LA or quite a few RHD (3 if awakened). :smalltongue:

I allow players to LA buy off savage progressions 1 LA at a time if they're taking the template class for cool flavor reasons and not just power.

You would have those RHD though.

[VoxRationis]

That's a pretty bad comparison.

Monks don't have proficiency by omission. WotC forgot to include the rules or simply assumed it was a given and didn't think it needed to be mentioned.

The rapier text instead goes out of its way to specifically mention that it only effects strength bonuses. Again, the author chose to add additional text to explicitly make it clear that he was referring to a single mechanic. That's entirely different than forgetting to add something, because, again, if that section of the text was removed the weapon would functional you claim it does.

And you're telling us that we should ignore that text because Vox says so.

The thing is this isn't even RAW vs RAI anymore. Because the thing Vox is talking about isn't even implied in the text in question. If anything the text goes out of its way to make sure that it does work with power attack.

Your logic here is as flawed as you claim mine is. If it went "out of its way to make sure that it does work with power attack," then it would say that it worked with Power Attack. Then I would not have brought the subject up in such a manner (though, I admit, I would probably have mentioned that it seems a little inconsistent). The rapier text does not mention that it only affects Strength bonuses, as you claim; it only mentions Strength bonuses. (English is an isolating language with syntactical rather than morphological complexity, with a few synthetic holdovers; word order matters.)
I am talking about two cases of omission. In one, they specifically list all the things a monk can use properly, and forget to include an item.
In the other, they specifically list a rule intersection that doesn't apply for the rapier, and, I argue, forget to include an item. In both cases, there are reasons in other parts of the text to make a connection between what is there and what is not. In one, the fluff and class features both mention that the monk uses unarmed strikes, so we conclude that it probably is intended....
To use unarmed strikes.
In the other, we see that the rapier user is barred from holding the rapier in two hands, that they might benefit from additional damage that stems from having high Strength, so we conclude that it probably is intended...
That the rapier user cannot gain alternative sources of additional damage, also stemming (albeit a step more removed) from high Strength, from the use of two hands.
The thought process here is more similar than you care to admit.

[Snowbluff]

I allow players to LA buy off savage progressions 1 LA at a time if they're taking the template class for cool flavor reasons and not just power.

You would have those RHD though.

Hmm... interesting. Alternatively, I could use Legacy Champion, getting some HD/HP to go with the benefits.

This is exactly what I'd do if this was an arcane duelist.

[VoxRationis]

That it is a terrible class I will not object, but this point I will: Every spellcaster in the game has abilities that are not mundane (by virtue of them being spellcasters), and that every mundane character in the game can have supernatural, spell-like, or even full-blown spells as abilities via feats, racial choice, or some other method. Do you also ban the Paladin and Ranger for having magical capabilities, or is there a double-standard occurring?

The Warblade, for example, is completely mundane. Barring 2 maneuvers, neither of which are required (although one is incredibly good), why are they banned in your game?

Ah, this is a simple misinterpretation of what I said. I was not saying I hated the monk because they had supernatural abilities, or banned them because of that. I was saying that because a monk is less mundane than a rogue or fighter, disliking the monk is not an attack against mundanes.

[VoxRationis]

It had been mentioned by someone other then me before you posted a response too it that wasn't a dismissal.

And that's part of the point, your letting fluff run all the mechanics, and that hurts the mechanics if your not running a spell caster. The tome of battle classes are balance, your not disallowing them because there balanced, your doing it cause you don't like there printed fluff.

The only problem is that your doggedly sticking to fluff that actively nerfs melee all over the place, and actively encourages caster supremacy by it's very nature.

There are also other reasons I dislike the Tome of Battle classes; why would a character forget a maneuver they had trained intensively on using right after using it? Never mind the ways they have of regaining their maneuvers, before they do so, they have suffered from some sort of retrograde amnesia. One cannot even argue that it tires them, because they can then use a maneuver of equal or greater difficulty without any problems.
Furthermore, the Tome of Battle classes aren't even mundane in any sense other than that they have Ex written on the label. They do things which are patently magical in nature. They therefore are not capable of performing their (according to you) intended role of making mundanes comparable to casters.

[Metahuman1]

(Un)inspired: Hmm, ya know, I'm wondering how much I could get out of a Factotum/Warblade/Swashbuckler/Eternal Blade now that uses a Rapier.


Vox: I would just like to point out that pretty much everyone that has talked to you on this thread has told you they disagree/your wrong and have cited solid reasoning and logic.

Now, far as morality, I like Captain America's "No, YOU MOVE!" speech and all, but, for D&D Rules, not so much.

Edit: First, they don't "Forget" the maneuver. When you move in a fight, your positioning with your weapon, grip and foot work are, by necessity, changed. And different moves in a fight force changes of position, making impossible to use some moves form the new position. You make a downward strike, you can't instantly transition, effectively, into another downward strike. Tome of battle basically says "Ok, so instead of trying to spam the same move over and over (Full attack, then, Full Attack, then, Full attack, so on.) Will vary it up. Again, look at tome of battle, some Japanese and/or Chinese swordsmanship manuals, and some historical German/Scottish/Italian Swordsmanship manuals, and you'll be amazed how similar they feel.

As for not mundane: Three Schools out of Nine are supernatural, and fit with heroic Mythology. Arthurian Lore, Greek and Roman and Celtic Myth, Arthurian Legend, Tales of Conan of Cimmera and the actual feats of characters like Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and Boramer form the lord of the rings. And no one's forcing a martial adept to take supernatural maneuvers. A crusader can take White Raven and Stone Dragon maneuvers, a Warblade doesn't even get access too supernatural schools, A Swordsage has Tiger Claw, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon and Diamond Mind to run with. And even if you allow the supernatural stuff, it's not hard to just write it as "He's just that good/protected by his faith in he gods."

So, unless your banning Barbarian Rage, Paladin/Ranger Casting and Smite Evil/other Divine Class features, or the Fighter having Bonus Feats and the Rogue having Sneak attack for being that good/protected and empowered by there god, there's no real reason to Ban Tome of Battle, it's fluff is, if anything, MORE realistic then the classes it's designed to replace, and the mechanics work better. Which, you know, allows them to back up claims of being a stealthy assassin, a fierce warrior, a swordsman of unparallelled skill/a warrior of virtue serving the gods.

[VoxRationis]

You have not addressed me with solid reasoning. You have addressed me with vulgarity, with loaded terms, and with sentences that border on the unreadable, as well as arguments that seize upon irrelevant topics and frequently misread the (explicitly stated) meanings behind my words.

[Big Fau]

There are also other reasons I dislike the Tome of Battle classes; why would a character forget a maneuver they had trained intensively on using right after using it? Never mind the ways they have of regaining their maneuvers, before they do so, they have suffered from some sort of retrograde amnesia. One cannot even argue that it tires them, because they can then use a maneuver of equal or greater difficulty without any problems.
Furthermore, the Tome of Battle classes aren't even mundane in any sense other than that they have Ex written on the label. They do things which are patently magical in nature. They therefore are not capable of performing their (according to you) intended role of making mundanes comparable to casters.

Have you ever seen a real martial arts fight? Or any fight involving something beyond punching someone repeatedly? Attempting the same technique multiple times means you become predictable, making it easier for your opponent to find an opening and retaliate.

Maneuvers expend themselves for two reasons:


To force the martial adept to try a different tactic or refresh themselves (the Warblade's mechanic is a feint or generic attack, the Swordsage's is him looking for an opening, and the Crusader is shown those same openings by his faith).
The maneuver involves over-extending from their fighting stance, forcing the martial adept to regain his footing/posture in order to re-initiate that maneuver.


Maneuvers aren't like magic; just because they're expended doesn't mean they are forgotten completely (like spells are). The adept still knows the maneuver, he just needs another opening/to regain his footing to use it again.

[Xerlith]

There are also other reasons I dislike the Tome of Battle classes; why would a character forget a maneuver they had trained intensively on using right after using it? Never mind the ways they have of regaining their maneuvers, before they do so, they have suffered from some sort of retrograde amnesia. One cannot even argue that it tires them, because they can then use a maneuver of equal or greater difficulty without any problems.
Furthermore, the Tome of Battle classes aren't even mundane in any sense other than that they have Ex written on the label. They do things which are patently magical in nature. They therefore are not capable of performing their (according to you) intended role of making mundanes comparable to casters.

They have shifted their stances, moved out of appropriate positions to do so, in Swordsages case it might be the expended "ki", concentration or whatever. But you know, it's just a MECHANICAL REPRESENTATION of an in-game thing. In-game they don't forget maneuvers - they just diversify their attacks so the opponents don't anticipate those easily.

The Tome of Battle Warblade is as mundane as a solid, grey stone. You have literally never seen a mundane person over 4th level in real life - so you have warped expectations.
Our real world (estimated) 2nd - 3rd level experts have flown to the moon, changed the courses of the rivers, tilted (just a bit) the orbit of our planet, made weapons that annihilate every living thing in a radius of kilometers, we have weapons that shoot bullets faster than any high-level D&D character can attack, have means of overland, long distance flight...

Can you please say again that a guy who trained his whole life, is an exceptional individual and such, cannot leap while striking in such a way that his attack is more efficient?

And I'm sorry, but naming yourself "Voice of Reason" while you can't cope with evidence provided... :smallsigh:

[VoxRationis]

It is unwise to do the same tactic over and over again. I would not argue that it is impossible to, with a few exceptions (which could be listed by maneuver).
In fact, I would probably be more willing to allow Tome of Battle (though not really willing, for other reasons we have argued about ad nauseam already) if all the maneuvers were available at will, though that would probably require some sort of adjustment for balance.

Regarding the previous post: How does it expend ki or concentration or throw off one's stance to do the same attack a second time, but not to do an equally difficult attack?
And kudos for knowing some Latin, by the way.
I've addressed evidence brought up against me. I have eloquently addressed every concern, and argued my points in several layers of explicitness. I even asked about the person who claimed to have been trained in two-handed rapier fighting; I have yet to see his reply.

[Xerlith]

The arguments you shown were disputed and dealt with a long time ago. The only reason you'd disallow it is a twisted thought that "Fighter is good enough mundane character". Well, it's not.
I see two problems with your approach, be it Tome Of Battle or anything else:
1. Firmly embracing the fluff being married to crunch.
2. Complete disregard of the Tier system.

It seems that you want to play in some kind of core-only, idealised D&D where everyone is always useful and everyone is always contributing, regardless of the level and class. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying we all here have long since come to undestanding that 3.5 is inherently flawed and taken the approach that lets all the character concepts be playable.


How does it expend ki or concentration or throw off one's stance to do the same attack a second time, but not to do an equally difficult attack?

Oh, you know, footwork. Being in a position to initiate one maneuver does not mean being able to initiate another. Expending Ki or concentration? Well, since Vancian casting makes sense (it doesn't), why not this? Maybe the Swordsage uses breathing techniques that with initiating make his pulse and breath irregular for this kind of maneuver, forcing him to regain posture? Maybe it's how the energy flows through the body? Those explanations can be really done without much thought.

That explanation works as good as any other - have you EVER seen a swordsman using one move time after another? Without doing anything else? In any kind of fight? Or a boxer? A martial artist?

I am saying it again - you're marrying the crunch to the fluff which generates a monstrosity like having to explain this. How do you explain the Wizard being able to cast a meteor storm but not a magic missile if he expended all his 1st level slots?

The Sorcerer being able to cast a meteor storm or a magic missile, but only one - and only once?

[(Un)Inspired]

(Un)inspired: Hmm, ya know, I'm wondering how much I could get out of a Factotum/Warblade/Swashbuckler/Eternal Blade now that uses a Rapier.




If you take 3 levels of factotum and 3 levels of swashbuckler you can still get 9th level maneuvers...

[Big Fau]

So, unless your banning Barbarian Rage, Paladin/Ranger Casting and Smite Evil/other Divine Class features, or the Fighter having Bonus Feats and the Rogue having Sneak attack for being that good/protected and empowered by there god, there's no real reason to Ban Tome of Battle, it's fluff is, if anything, MORE realistic then the classes it's designed to replace, and the mechanics work better. Which, you know, allows them to back up claims of being a stealthy assassin, a fierce warrior, a swordsman of unparallelled skill/a warrior of virtue serving the gods.

Seconding this. There's no reason a Barbarian can't rage more than 1-4/day. Adrenaline isn't that limited in even an infant.

[squiggit]

Your logic here is as flawed as you claim mine is. If it went "out of its way to make sure that it does work with power attack," then it would say that it worked with Power Attack.
Er. No. That's not how rules work in D&D. Power attack says what it does. If a weapon interacts differently the rules need to state that.


The rapier text does not mention that it only affects Strength bonuses, as you claim; it only mentions Strength bonuses.
In this instance the two are one in the same. Again, D&D is an exception based rule system. Power attack does X and if rapiers don't work with power attack th rules should say as much.

If the text says "You cannot gain benefits from wielding a rapier two handed, such as..." and then discussed the strength bonus you'd have a point. It doesn't though. Instead it says explicitly what the special interaction is.

You claiming it shouldn't work with power attack also is entirely homebrew. RAI has nothing to do with it as the point isn't even implied anywhere.



In the other, they specifically list a rule intersection that doesn't apply for the rapier, and, I argue, forget to include an item. In both cases, there are reasons in other parts of the text to make a connection between what is there and what is not. In one, the fluff and class features both mention that the monk uses unarmed strikes, so we conclude that it probably is intended....
To use unarmed strikes.

The difference is the nature of them. Granted there is a degree of similarity, but the way the rapier's line explicitly goes out of its way to specify strength bonuses makes it unbelievable for me. Omitting the line in question about the strength bonus makes your statement true, while keeping it makes the sentence refer to only one feature.

Could this be a mistake? Maybe, but the addition so fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence guessing at it is far beyond the scope of either RAW or RAI. We might as well be asserting that fireball was meant to be a cold attack before someone typed the wrong name.


The thought process here is more similar than you care to admit.
Oh sure. There's a degree of extrapolation. Hell I don't even disagre that power attack two handed rapiers seem silly. It's just not in the rules.


Furthermore, the Tome of Battle classes aren't even mundane in any sense other than that they have Ex written on the label. They do things which are patently magical in nature. They therefore are not capable of performing their (according to you) intended role of making mundanes comparable to casters.
That's your first mistake. "Mundanes" in D&D should only be mundane insofar as they compare to magic users. They're still supernaturally talented heroic high fantasy characters. Even without looking at ToB, a fighter can jump out of an airplane and walk away. A rogue can get his skills high enough to walk on clouds or steal items he shouldn't be able to physically reach. A barbarian can tear down solid stone walls and punch out a giant.

Keeping martial characters "realistic" is one of the biggest reasons the disparity existed in the first place

[VoxRationis]

I see two problems with your approach, be it Tome Of Battle or anything else:
1. Firmly embracing the fluff being married to crunch.
2. Complete disregard of the Tier system.

1. Oh my! Insisting that the system reflect what it has been described as, or that people accept both parts of what they select, rather than merely the most favorable part? What abominable and villainous behavior!

2. Maybe that's because it's not actually part of the game. It's just an idea circulating around forums.

[Metahuman1]

My only hesitation is throwing Factotum in there means I can't enter the PRC till level eleven to meet the BAB 10 portion of the program.

[Flickerdart]

RAI has nothing to do with it as the point isn't even implied anywhere.
This actually seems to be a common mistake by new users who haven't really grokked the community's parlance - they see RAW vs RAI argued and assume that it means "the thing the rules say" and "the thing I want the rules to say." For everyone not in the loop, RAW is "rules as written" - the literal meaning of the rules, even when it's silly. RAI is "rules as intended" - what the writers probably intended based on the evidence we as a community are able to find, and a generous application of Occam's Razor. Neither of these is "rules as I run in my game" (those would be houserules) or "rules as I would like everyone to run in their game" (that's either homebrew or arrogance, depending).

[Quorothorn]

There are also other reasons I dislike the Tome of Battle classes; why would a character forget a maneuver they had trained intensively on using right after using it? Never mind the ways they have of regaining their maneuvers, before they do so, they have suffered from some sort of retrograde amnesia. One cannot even argue that it tires them, because they can then use a maneuver of equal or greater difficulty without any problems.
Furthermore, the Tome of Battle classes aren't even mundane in any sense other than that they have Ex written on the label. They do things which are patently magical in nature. They therefore are not capable of performing their (according to you) intended role of making mundanes comparable to casters.

You do realize this topic has been discussed ad nauseum on these forums and that the people with anything approaching real-life experience with the martial arts, or even just pure academic studying thereof, have consistently (universally, I think?!) sided with Tome of Battle actually doing a better job of simulating (in an obviously abstract/gamist manner) combat than essentially the entire rest of D&D?

Wizards "forget" their spells (sort of, even that is a very simplistic way of describing it IMO)--no other limited-use class abilities to my knowledge come close to working that way?

Also, Extraordinary abilities are directly called out as being capable of, AND I QUOTE, "break[ing] the laws of physics" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities). What's "patently magical" about hitting really hard with a single attack, shaking off negative conditions, directing allies, throwing foes about, or jumping past someone to catch them off-guard, anyway? There definitely ARE some Supernatural maneuvers, and a couple that arguably should have had the (Su) tag but do not (Shadow Jaunt...), but claiming they ALL are is an absurdity. Do you think someone IRL who breaks a block of wood bare-handed is a wizard?

You merely have some misunderstandings on Tome of Battle, here. That's fine, it's easy to happen as we can see by how many people make the same mistakes. But they are your mistakes in this case, not those of ToB, which was a much-needed step in the RIGHT direction by WotC.

((The actual mistakes of ToB are, mainly, sometimes quite sketchy editing and a massive errata fail. Well, and that it didn't receive further support, but that second one is technically not its own "fault", of course.))

[Xerlith]

1. Oh my! Insisting that the system reflect what it has been described as, or that people accept both parts of what they select, rather than merely the most favorable part? What abominable and villainous behavior!

2. Maybe that's because it's not actually part of the game. It's just an idea circulating around forums.

Okay. Compare Warblade to Fighter. Close eyes. Look at a character from in-game perspective. Tell me which one it is. No blinking!

Well, if you dismiss the tier system as "just an idea" (Why didn't you use "theory" instead? I love when people do that), I guess your Fighter can teleport pretty easily with his class features and your wizard fireballs all day. Or "saves slots".
The potential described in the tier system is real. The tiers ARE part of the game. The wizard has infinitely more options than a fighter. In any situation, on any level. It's a matter of fact, not speculations.

Tier system is circulating around forums and thanks to this very fact it can be taken seriously - many people, who crunched numbers and options, who ran through numerous sourcebooks have tested, tweaked and fined it to the point it can show the optimization ceiling of a given class quite well. Playtesting is something WotC has never been good at. But you know who playtested the game relentlessly since it came out? Players.

And I am sorry, but it seems nothing that is or can be said is able change your view on things. Not because you're right, but because you perceive the Playground as a gathering of munchkins with the sole purpose of "winning" D&D, and extrapolating from that, you consider yourself somehow better. Nothing personal, just the way you appear through your posts.

[Snowbluff]

I'm finding this all very ironic."Voice of reason."



And I'm sorry, but naming yourself "Voice of Reason" while you can't cope with evidence provided... :smallsigh:
Whatever-the-Latin-word-for-ninja-is... ed.

If you take 3 levels of factotum and 3 levels of swashbuckler you can still get 9th level maneuvers...

You can use EB to grab maneuvers early.
Seriously, this should be a thing. :smallsmile:

I also would like to try a were murder of crows sometime.

[squiggit]

This actually seems to be a common mistake by new users who haven't really grokked the community's parlance - they see RAW vs RAI argued and assume that it means "the thing the rules say" and "the thing I want the rules to say." For everyone not in the loop, RAW is "rules as written" - the literal meaning of the rules, even when it's silly. RAI is "rules as intended" - what the writers probably intended based on the evidence we as a community are able to find, and a generous application of Occam's Razor. Neither of these is "rules as I run in my game" (those would be houserules) or "rules as I would like everyone to run in their game" (that's either homebrew or arrogance, depending).

Oh I know the difference. My point was that I didn't see anything in the rule in question that even hinted at the supposed RAI.

[VoxRationis]

Oh, you know, footwork. Being in a position to initiate one maneuver does not mean being able to initiate another. Expending Ki or concentration? Well, since Vancian casting makes sense (it doesn't), why not this? Maybe the Swordsage uses breathing techniques that with initiating make his pulse and breath irregular for this kind of maneuver, forcing him to regain posture? Maybe it's how the energy flows through the body? Those explanations can be really done without much thought.

That explanation works as good as any other - have you EVER seen a swordsman using one move time after another? Without doing anything else? In any kind of fight? Or a boxer? A martial artist?

I am saying it again - you're marrying the crunch to the fluff which generates a monstrosity like having to explain this. How do you explain the Wizard being able to cast a meteor storm but not a magic missile if he expended all his 1st level slots?

The Sorcerer being able to cast a meteor storm or a magic missile, but only one - and only once?

I'm going to assume you didn't intentionally go back and add these comments in an attempt to make it look like I'm not addressing your arguments.
Okay, let's go:
-So the use of this maneuver stops him from repeating that maneuver because "breathing" or "footwork," but not from any other maneuver, even those similar both thematically and mechanically? Interesting...
-Like I agreed, unwise to be predictable, but people do practice doing the same thing over and over, so it's patently not impossible for them to do so.
-The wizard has to prepare his spells at the start of every morning, like loading a revolver with specialty ammo or something like that (I'm not a gun expert; don't call me on it if revolvers don't have specialty ammo—it's not the point). It's not a power thing; if he hasn't prepared magic missile, he hasn't prepared it.
-I admit defeat with the sorcerer—it was a bizarre addition to a system that was previously wholly Vancian. That doesn't necessarily mean I should abandon fluff. It just means I need to work more on the sorcerer or remove it from play.

[Big Fau]

2. Maybe that's because it's not actually part of the game. It's just an idea circulating around forums.

The recognition is an idea, but the actual thing the thread describes is a real phenomenon experienced by a great many players around the world.

[Vhaidara]

@(Un)Inspired, Snowbluff, Sir Chuckles and Metahuman: Maybe we should move discussion of potential campaign elsewhere. There's kind of an off topic discussion (us) and a tangential argument going on here.

[Flickerdart]

The recognition is an idea, but the actual thing the thread describes is a real phenomenon experienced by a great many players around the world.
This is my favourite part about Tier system naysayers - the argument that because "someone made it up" it's something that doesn't apply to your games unless you want it to. One might note that the field of mathematics is also "made up" and yet manages to be pretty hard to ignore.

[Big Fau]

This is my favourite part about Tier system naysayers - the argument that because "someone made it up" it's something that doesn't apply to your games unless you want it to. One might note that the field of mathematics is also "made up" and yet manages to be pretty hard to ignore.

Right, but let's leave the Tiers discussion at that before it takes the thread into a 4th dimension. Pun not intended.

[VoxRationis]

If you all care that much about balance, why do you play? Why not play World of Warcraft or, if you're not one for computers, 4th?
There is no reason but metagame to insist on a tier system to track this inequality or to insist on balance at the expense of fluff. Well, I play a role-playing game, not rock-paper-scissors.

They're right; this has gotten really tangential. Never mind.

[Metahuman1]

@(Un)Inspired, Snowbluff, Sir Chuckles and Metahuman: Maybe we should move discussion of potential campaign elsewhere. There's kind of an off topic discussion (us) and a tangential argument going on here.

Sure, Drop a Link to a post in recruitment perhaps to make it easy to find? =)

[Hiro Protagonest]

If you all care that much about balance, why do you play? Why not play World of Warcraft or, if you're not one for computers, 4th?
There is no reason but metagame to insist on a tier system to track this inequality or to insist on balance at the expense of fluff. Well, I play a role-playing game, not rock-paper-scissors.

Expense of fluff? What fluff? The fluff where I'm Beowulf? Tai Lung? The Nameless Hero? Captain America?

If you want to say that every high-level warrior in your world is inherently supernatural but most of their abilities still work in an AMF, fine. If you want to say no warrior in your world is supernatural, and anything outside of the laws of physics is not allowed, that's not fine.

[(Un)Inspired]

@(Un)Inspired, Snowbluff, Sir Chuckles and Metahuman: Maybe we should move discussion of potential campaign elsewhere. There's kind of an off topic discussion (us) and a tangential argument going on here.

I just got to work but I'll start a thread of it as soon as I get a chance.

[Metahuman1]

I just got to work but I'll start a thread of it as soon as I get a chance.

Take your time, just put a link around this thread somewhere when it is up so it's easy to locate, K?

[(Un)Inspired]

Take your time, just put a link around this thread somewhere when it is up so it's easy to locate, K?

Sure. I'm gonna try to duck behind the bar to post as much as I can but it's gonna be tricky. My boss is lurking around here somewhere like the shark from Jaws.

[Sir Chuckles]

I just got to work but I'll start a thread of it as soon as I get a chance.

Am I supposed to stay 18 Int Neanderthal, Earthly God of Thunder? Or do I get a re-spec and specifics in the thread?

The reason I'm willing to be off topic here is because Vox is stubborn. This argument will never get anywhere as long as Vox has his very specific ideas.
One piece of advice I can say is this:

A DM's job is not to say "NO". It is the job of the DM to work with their players to find a solution to everything, so that the group's fun is never compromised in the name of opinion. "No, but..." is one of the best lines a DM can use.

[(Un)Inspired]

Am I supposed to stay 18 Int Neanderthal, Earthly God of Thunder? Or do I get a re-spec and specifics in the thread?

The reason I'm willing to be off topic here is because Vox is stubborn. This argument will never get anywhere as long as Vox has his very specific ideas.
One piece of advice I can say is this:

A DM's job is not to say "NO". It is the job of the DM to work with their players to find a solution to everything, so that the group's fun is never compromised in the name of opinion. "No, but..." is one of the best lines a DM can use.

Yeah you can totally respec. I'll like to do some rewriting of Ragemage also.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah you can totally respec. I'll like to do some rewriting of Ragemage also.
I made one of those (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218562) once, in case it helps.

[Seerow]

I made one of those (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218562) once, in case it helps.

There's also one in my sig, if you're looking for options.

[(Un)Inspired]

Ok guys I started a thread in recrutment for a potential game. I personally invite everyone who posted here to come by and at least take a peak at the kind of game I run (If only to point and jeer at my incompetence).

Here's the link to the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17203937#post17203937)

[Morty]

The designers of D&D have consistently failed at comprehending the concept of a warrior who is anything other than a heavily-armoured idiot swinging a chunk of metal. Thus, attempts for melee characters to move out of this archetype are severely punished and need to jump through hoops. Duelist is just the first and foremost example of this, and the game didn't get much better at properly representing any warrior archetype other than big, dumb door-opener until Tome of Battle.

[VoxRationis]

The designers of D&D have consistently failed at comprehending the concept of a warrior who is anything other than a heavily-armoured idiot swinging a chunk of metal. Thus, attempts for melee characters to move out of this archetype are severely punished and need to jump through hoops. Duelist is just the first and foremost example of this, and the game didn't get much better at properly representing any warrior archetype other than big, dumb door-opener until Tome of Battle.

This is true, though to be fair, heavily armored troops wielding large weapons dominated the battlefield until armor was no longer practical for other reasons.

[Morty]

Which might be an argument if D&D combat a) represented large-scale warfare and/or b) had anything to do with real historical combat, neither of which is true.

[VoxRationis]

I would counter that:
Firstly, the difficulty of fencing against someone in heavy armor should be apparent; it's not just in a one-on-one that the domination applies;
Secondly, until later editions, D&D kept very well to historical precedent and much of 3.5 reflects this, though WotC lost their way with regard to that midway through. If you page through, for example, the AD&D printing immediately before third edition came out, the books are littered with comparisons to history in everything. How many people use the longspear or spear, or any of the myriad polearms (glaive excepted), or flails? Not that many characters, but they include it because of appeal to historical precedent.

[Big Fau]

I would counter that:
Firstly, the difficulty of fencing against someone in heavy armor should be apparent; it's not just in a one-on-one that the domination applies;
Secondly, until later editions, D&D kept very well to historical precedent and much of 3.5 reflects this, though WotC lost their way with regard to that midway through. If you page through, for example, the AD&D printing immediately before third edition came out, the books are littered with comparisons to history in everything. How many people use the longspear or spear, or any of the myriad polearms (glaive excepted), or flails? Not that many characters, but they include it because of appeal to historical precedent.

You show me a historical battle that involved Wizards polymorphing themselves into Hydras and I'll believe that D&D was intended to be a realistic representation of historical warfare.

Moreover, you show me where in 3.5 it says AD&D's rules still apply and I'll accept that the examples in AD&D are applicable to this thread.

[(Un)Inspired]

You show me a historical battle that involved Wizards polymorphing themselves into Hydras and I'll believe that D&D was intended to be a realistic representation of historical warfare.



You mean the Battle of Hydraloo? I love history!

[Morty]

I would counter that:
Firstly, the difficulty of fencing against someone in heavy armor should be apparent; it's not just in a one-on-one that the domination applies;

Except that fencing in D&D 3e is ineffective against everyone, not just heavy armour. It's just as weak when you're fighting a wizard in a robe or a monster which has no armour at all.


Secondly, until later editions, D&D kept very well to historical precedent and much of 3.5 reflects this, though WotC lost their way with regard to that midway through. If you page through, for example, the AD&D printing immediately before third edition came out, the books are littered with comparisons to history in everything. How many people use the longspear or spear, or any of the myriad polearms (glaive excepted), or flails? Not that many characters, but they include it because of appeal to historical precedent.

D&D bears superficial similarity to medieval and reneissance martial arts, yes. The key word is superficial. It doesn't extend past the names. Otherwise longswords wouldn't be one-handed weapons, rapiers wouldn't exist and there would be guns. To name just a few things.

More than that - if D&D combat was actually realistic, you would need Dexterity to fight with weapons, always. Which obviously isn't the case, since Strength is much more important unless you decide to shoot yourself in the foot by taking Weapon Finesse. Bottom line: appeal to realism doesn't hold in D&D 3rd edition, period.

[TheIronGolem]

Bottom line: appeal to realism doesn't hold in D&D 3rd edition, period.
Or any other edition of it. Not that this is a bad thing.

[VoxRationis]

Or any other edition of it. Not that this is a bad thing.

I could accept, perhaps, the "not 3rd edition" argument (not that I am fully convinced, but it's possible), but I'm putting my foot down with the "not any edition" argument. The AD&D books I have make numerous references to:
Historical uses of pike formations
The poor quality of lenses in the game, equated to those of the medieval period
The nature of locks in the locks in the game, ditto
THE FREAKING ARMAMENT OF COUNTLESS HISTORICAL SOLDIERS BY TIME PERIOD, CULTURE, AND BATTLEFIELD ROLE
The different kinds of ships available in the medieval period, down to seaworthiness, crew sizes, etc.
Discussions of whether particular armor types were historically accurate
Discussions of community dynamics and society in historical times
Explicitly naming different ranks, offices, taxes, and other aspects of medieval politics
And probably a half-dozen other things I can't think of right now. Now, while they might not be entirely historically accurate, you cannot say that there is no "appeal to realism" in that edition.

As for 3rd: If there were no appeal to realism, why would they bother creating such large weapons tables including weapons of suboptimal design? They could have simply made a table listing base price and weight by a function of the different damage, critical chance, etc. of the weapon and saved on ink and paper. But they wanted to recognize that a lot of soldiers and warriors would be using suboptimal but historically common weapons in use for reasons that made sense from that context.

[(Un)Inspired]

I could accept, perhaps, the "not 3rd edition" argument (not that I am fully convinced, but it's possible), but I'm putting my foot down with the "not any edition" argument. The AD&D books I have make numerous references to:
Historical uses of pike formations
The poor quality of lenses in the game, equated to those of the medieval period
The nature of locks in the locks in the game, ditto
THE FREAKING ARMAMENT OF COUNTLESS HISTORICAL SOLDIERS BY TIME PERIOD, CULTURE, AND BATTLEFIELD ROLE
The different kinds of ships available in the medieval period, down to seaworthiness, crew sizes, etc.
Discussions of whether particular armor types were historically accurate
Discussions of community dynamics and society in historical times
Explicitly naming different ranks, offices, taxes, and other aspects of medieval politics
And probably a half-dozen other things I can't think of right now. Now, while they might not be entirely historically accurate, you cannot say that there is no "appeal to realism" in that edition.

As for 3rd: If there were no appeal to realism, why would they bother creating such large weapons tables including weapons of suboptimal design? They could have simply made a table listing base price and weight by a function of the different damage, critical chance, etc. of the weapon and saved on ink and paper. But they wanted to recognize that a lot of soldiers and warriors would be using suboptimal but historically common weapons in use for reasons that made sense from that context.

I'm playing in a 2nd edition campaign right now. Two weeks ago my bard (3rd lvl) got into a duel with a paladin. I wanted to win so I shot a blast of magical colours at him in a wave that knocked him unconscious.

It was entirely within the rules. Heck it's entires within the rules of the players handbook. (Although we do use the complete series. The complete ninja is particularly interesting).

What I'm not clear on is how a game can appeal to realism when I can fight like that.

[Vhaidara]

As for 3rd: If there were no appeal to realism, why would they bother creating such large weapons tables including weapons of suboptimal design? They could have simply made a table listing base price and weight by a function of the different damage, critical chance, etc. of the weapon and saved on ink and paper. But they wanted to recognize that a lot of soldiers and warriors would be using suboptimal but historically common weapons in use for reasons that made sense from that context.

No, it was because they recognized that WE would want to build this stuff. Spears may suck, but maybe maybe I want to use a spear. So they gave me a spear.

[VoxRationis]

My god, is this what this is about?
Having magic in a setting, a story, or a game does not mean you throw realism (or more properly, verisimilitude, as I was recently corrected regarding) out the window automatically. Even if part of that magic involves waves of fabulous rainbow colors that knock people unconscious.
Verisimilitude involves things behaving as they would normally, but it does not wholly prevent magic from intervening in the setting. It merely means that things behave as you would expect in real life except for when magic happens. It's what separates fantasy from [shudder] magical realism (yes, I know, the name is ironic).
In fantasy, when you stab the monster, it (usually) dies.
In magical realism, when you stab the monster, it is equally likely to turn into butterflies, explode, ask you about your mother, etc.
And while creatures that do unorthodox things when they die exist in fantasy and D&D, they do so because of explicit (to the DM, at least) and consistent abilities or qualities. Barring that, they react realistically to being stabbed, and the rest of the world does this too, acting in a realistic fashion unless there's a good reason not to. Having magic in the setting does not invalidate all the other, historically derived things that can be in it. That your 2e bard incapacitated the paladin with color spray does not mean that their environment wasn't medieval when they did this.

Verisimilitude is what's normal happens unless noted.

[Seerow]

Vox, you could save yourself a lot of text by just summing up your position as "Screw you for wanting to play a non-caster".

Same general point, far less words and makes it more immediately obvious that the position isn't worth arguing against.

[EugeneVoid]

This is kinda-off topic
Especially because this is supposed to be about Duelist, but:

4th Edition is not balanced either. The strongest builds ever made in the 4th was this one Eladrin or Elf Epic Destiny Wizard (I forgot its name) that could mass genocide everything in the universe in one round. It sends clones around the world shooting any at-will spell at them until they die.

The other build is far more rules legal, requiring much less ambiguity. It was a paladin that flies around the world infinitely spraying itself with acid, anything nearby would die from a damage ignoring all resistances and immunity-s.

The big problem with 4th is that its actually unplayable if you don't have
A. Optimization
B. Magic Items

I could display numbers, but it would take a while, but past ~level 16, the PC's abilities scale so much slower than monsters.

Epic levels (by the way) are much better balanced in 4th. The combat in 4th, I'd argue is much better balanced.
Out of Combat is really boring
3.5 also lets you create interesting characters around an idea, rather than fitting them into a niche: defender, striker, leader, controller or combination of the aforementioned.

Quick Response to Vox:
When you are the only person arguing against a large group of people on the giantitp forums, you are generally wrong. Just tossing that out there.
Notice how I said generally.
I hate arguing on the internet. It is like the special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded. (Sorry if this is offensive. I'm an offensive person. I have special people in my life too)

Magic kind of breaks realism if applied realistically. When you can create food, shelter, and really anything with just a tiny bit of time and imagination, then our grasp of the world really begins to break down.

[VoxRationis]

Insisting that all classes have magical abilities, i.e. that there is no such thing as a mundane, is a far better way of doing that, Seerow. "Don't want to play a wizard or a dimension-hopping, shadow-trailing magic-rogue? Don't want to play a tabletop version of League of Legends? Want to play an update of an AD&D character or make a mundane character from any of countless fantasy archetypes?" [I mean, the thief alone...] "Too bad!"
In any case, it is simply not the case that I am some form of mundane-hating bigot. I love playing rogues just as much as I love playing wizards. I enjoy playing fighters perhaps a little less, because I'm a fan of guile and trickery, but that's not really the point. I have played many characters, both magical and not, and have enjoyed them.
Also, it is my wish that you go and perform a physically impossible act reexamine your life. This is not a World of Warcraft balance forum. If you insist on complete balance in this manner, where spending your life learning to use magic has no point due to local street urchins inexplicably having an array of magic-comparable abilities, at the expense of feeling like a world instead of a game, you should go play a different edition of the game; you are fortunate that it is still in print.

[EugeneVoid]

Insisting that all classes have magical abilities, i.e. that there is no such thing as a mundane, is a far better way of doing that, Seerow. "Don't want to play a wizard or a dimension-hopping, shadow-trailing magic-rogue? Don't want to play a tabletop version of League of Legends? Want to play an update of an AD&D character or make a mundane character from any of countless fantasy archetypes?" [I mean, the thief alone...] "Too bad!"
In any case, it is simply not the case that I am some form of mundane-hating bigot. I love playing rogues just as much as I love playing wizards. I enjoy playing fighters perhaps a little less, because I'm a fan of guile and trickery, but that's not really the point. I have played many characters, both magical and not, and have enjoyed them.
Also, it is my wish that you go and perform a physically impossible act reexamine your life. This is not a World of Warcraft balance forum. If you insist on complete balance in this manner, where spending your life learning to use magic has no point due to local street urchins inexplicably having an array of magic-comparable abilities, at the expense of feeling like a world instead of a game, you should go play a different edition of the game; you are fortunate that it is still in print.

Oh real quick
I've been following you on the forums a little.
Whats this argument even about

I know it started about Rapiers and the Two-handed deal

Then it moved around the wall of force

I really can't follow whats going on:

tl;dr: tl;dr help me out here

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh real quick
I've been following you on the forums a little.
Whats this argument even about

I know it started about Rapiers and the Two-handed deal

Then it moved around the wall of force

I really can't follow whats going on:

tl;dr: tl;dr help me out here

He's arguing that abilities not marked as (Su) should only do things that can happen in real life, but magic can do whatever the designers say it can.

Here's the problem with that theory: it's not stated in the game. So the designers are either incompetent or malicious.

[EugeneVoid]

SU?

But supernatural abilities go away in Anti-magic fields

They are magical in nature

They're like spell-like abilities but more biological or physical

EDIT: A more compelling argument is EX
EX is: "nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics."
What that means I don't even

[VoxRationis]

The last bit was whether realism was a desirable thing in D&D, which was brought up when I mentioned that it being difficult, when wielding a rapier in light armor, to defeat a fighter of equal skill wielding a two-handed sword in heavy armor had historical precedent. The thing about the wall of force was also something that others brought up, a reference to an idea I posited on another thread, and which I agree was not relevant to this, but I had to defend myself when attacked...
The forum seems to be under the mistaken impression that I exist wholly to occupy the opposite side of an ideological spectrum, "Wants everyone to have fun" to "Hates non-casters with a fiery if inexplicable passion", from everyone else, when my arguments rely on an entirely different mode of thinking about things.

[Nihilarian]

This is kinda-off topic
Especially because this is supposed to be about Duelist, but:

4th Edition is not balanced either. The strongest builds ever made in the 4th was this one Eladrin or Elf Epic Destiny Wizard (I forgot its name) that could mass genocide everything in the universe in one round. It sends clones around the world shooting any at-will spell at them until they die.

The other build is far more rules legal, requiring much less ambiguity. It was a paladin that flies around the world infinitely spraying itself with acid, anything nearby would die from a damage ignoring all resistances and immunity-s.

The big problem with 4th is that its actually unplayable if you don't have
A. Optimization
B. Magic Items

I could display numbers, but it would take a while, but past ~level 16, the PC's abilities scale so much slower than monsters.

Epic levels (by the way) are much better balanced in 4th. The combat in 4th, I'd argue is much better balanced.
Out of Combat is really boring
3.5 also lets you create interesting characters around an idea, rather than fitting them into a niche: defender, striker, leader, controller or combination of the aforementioned.

Quick Response to Vox:
When you are the only person arguing against a large group of people on the giantitp forums, you are generally wrong. Just tossing that out there.
Notice how I said generally.
I hate arguing on the internet. It is like the special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded. (Sorry if this is offensive. I'm an offensive person. I have special people in my life too)

Magic kind of breaks realism if applied realistically. When you can create food, shelter, and really anything with just a tiny bit of time and imagination, then our grasp of the world really begins to break down."Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you must be wrong" is a silly statement. I mean, he is wrong, but still, you can do better than that.

[EugeneVoid]

The last bit was whether realism was a desirable thing in D&D, which was brought up when I mentioned that it being difficult, when wielding a rapier in light armor, to defeat a fighter of equal skill wielding a two-handed sword in heavy armor had historical precedent. The thing about the wall of force was also something that others brought up, a reference to an idea I posited on another thread, and which I agree was not relevant to this, but I had to defend myself when attacked...
The forum seems to be under the mistaken impression that I exist wholly to occupy the opposite side of an ideological spectrum, "Wants everyone to have fun" to "Hates non-casters with a fiery if inexplicable passion", from everyone else, when my arguments rely on an entirely different mode of thinking about things.

I still don't get it.
Excuse me if I'm a bit slow.
So is this a thing about realism in D&D? Realism in nice, but applied too logically begins to fall apart in a world with Magic.

The last paragraph doesn't really explain to me whats going on.
"when my arguments rely on an entirely different mode of thinking about things"
Arguments about what?

EDIT;
"Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you must be wrong" is a silly statement. I mean, he is wrong, but still, you can do better than that.

Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean that the majority is always (or even more often) right. On this forum, especially in the comings of Pickford and Visigani, the playgrounders have come together in a unified front.

[VoxRationis]

Um...
My arguments in general. I was describing what people react to me as if I think as, and saying that I do not actually think like that.
Furthermore, yes, some degree of realism is essential. You may debate the amount required, but without some amount of realism, you can't have things react in a consistent and intuitive way; you could get the former with a system where everything acts consistently but completely unlike life, but that would get you what looks like the role-playing equivalent of a Salvador Dali work. Which, I suppose, is fine if you're a studio art major or something, but if you're after it in D&D, you're way more off base than people are saying I am.

[Nihilarian]

Um...
My arguments in general. I was describing what people react to me as if I think as, and saying that I do not actually think like that.
Furthermore, yes, some degree of realism is essential. You may debate the amount required, but without some amount of realism, you can't have things react in a consistent and intuitive way; you could get the former with a system where everything acts consistently but completely unlike life, but that would get you what looks like the role-playing equivalent of a Salvador Dali work. Which, I suppose, is fine if you're a studio art major or something, but if you're after it in D&D, you're way more off base than people are saying I am.It is not essential to Nerf rapiers further by not allowing them to get a few points extra damage.

It is not essential for the DM to let a spell cut off an enemies head when there is exactly nothing in the rules to support it.

It is not essential to scrutinize martials because they have to be "realistic" while casters tie the laws of physics in knots.

Past level 6, you are expected to be superhuman, regardless of class. Realism is optional.

[TheIronGolem]

I could accept, perhaps, the "not 3rd edition" argument (not that I am fully convinced, but it's possible), but I'm putting my foot down with the "not any edition" argument. The AD&D books I have make numerous references to:
Historical uses of pike formations
The poor quality of lenses in the game, equated to those of the medieval period
The nature of locks in the locks in the game, ditto
THE FREAKING ARMAMENT OF COUNTLESS HISTORICAL SOLDIERS BY TIME PERIOD, CULTURE, AND BATTLEFIELD ROLE
The different kinds of ships available in the medieval period, down to seaworthiness, crew sizes, etc.
Discussions of whether particular armor types were historically accurate
Discussions of community dynamics and society in historical times
Explicitly naming different ranks, offices, taxes, and other aspects of medieval politics
And probably a half-dozen other things I can't think of right now. Now, while they might not be entirely historically accurate, you cannot say that there is no "appeal to realism" in that edition.


That makes my point for me, because much of that information is held over from D&D's roots as non-fantasy historical wargaming, and wouldn't really apply in a world that has been filled with magic and monsters for hundreds-to-thousands of years as most D&D worlds have. It's actually less realistic in many ways, because it assumes that these elements would have had almost no effect on the world's societal, economic, or technological development.

As for realism in combat, that has absolutely never existed in this game. The hit point mechanic alone proves that. Hit Points are not, and never can be, an even slightly realistic way of modeling injury. It is, however, a great way to abstractly represent whatever combination of near-misses, fatigue, superficial wounds, luck, karma, etc the player and DM desire.

D&D combat is far more suited to being cinematic than realistic. And in a cinematic system, it is right and proper for an unarmored hero with a rapier to be able to kill a heavily-armored villain, because choice of weapon and fighting style are expressions of roleplaying. A cinematic system should encourage, rather than discourage, variety in those expressions.



As for 3rd: If there were no appeal to realism, why would they bother creating such large weapons tables including weapons of suboptimal design? They could have simply made a table listing base price and weight by a function of the different damage, critical chance, etc. of the weapon and saved on ink and paper. But they wanted to recognize that a lot of soldiers and warriors would be using suboptimal but historically common weapons in use for reasons that made sense from that context.
Simple: They didn't. The imbalance between weapon styles isn't in the weapon statblocks for the most part. It's largely in feat support and combat mechanics, areas of the game where the implications of a change are often not obvious, particularly since we're talking about people who are notorious for concentrating their playtest efforts on the lower levels where the cracks in the system aren't as visible. That's why exotic weapons usually aren't worth a feat slot (they're supposed to be, but aren't).

Speaking of exotic weapons, why in the world would a system that is honestly trying for "realism" have two-bladed swords? It wouldn't; they're there because some people would like to be Fantasy Darth Maul. And they should be able to.

As a further counterpoint, let me offer this question: If they wanted one-handing to be bad, why make a Duelist PrC at all? Why make any attempt to support and promote the style, if it was supposed to be a poor choice?


Insisting that all classes have magical abilities, i.e. that there is no such thing as a mundane, is a far better way of doing that, Seerow. "Don't want to play a wizard or a dimension-hopping, shadow-trailing magic-rogue? Don't want to play a tabletop version of League of Legends? Want to play an update of an AD&D character or make a mundane character from any of countless fantasy archetypes?" [I mean, the thief alone...] "Too bad!"
That in no way resembles any position advanced by anyone in this thread. You've called strawman on some of the charges leveled against you, and with good reason in some cases. But here you're fighting straw with straw; that won't help anything.




Also, it is my wish that you go and perform a physically impossible act reexamine your life. This is not a World of Warcraft balance forum. If you insist on complete balance in this manner, where spending your life learning to use magic has no point due to local street urchins inexplicably having an array of magic-comparable abilities, at the expense of feeling like a world instead of a game, you should go play a different edition of the game; you are fortunate that it is still in print.

Not only is this more straw (and in fact far more than was ever thrown at you collectively), but now you're actually suggesting that disagreement with you over how to play D&D is some kind of character flaw. Nobody needs to "reexamine their life" here.

[VoxRationis]

How is it straw to say that if you give magic to all mundane (i.e., nonmagical) characters, you will therefore no longer have mundane characters? Or that numerous nonmagical but beloved characters from fiction, legend, etc., cannot be statted or even imitated in a system where everyone has a bunch of magic abilities?
Or that the idea of a wizard spending years cloistered away in a tower, peering over tome after tome, in order to master magic is meaningless when it doesn't provide some reward compared with the far less intensive studies of other careers? They don't need to be more powerful, but they need to have abilities that can't be replicated without spellcasting, otherwise they could have just played outside as a kid.

[TheIronGolem]

How is it straw to say that if you give magic to all mundane (i.e., nonmagical) characters, you will therefore no longer have mundane characters? Or that numerous nonmagical but beloved characters from fiction, legend, etc., cannot be statted or even imitated in a system where everyone has a bunch of magic abilities?
Or that the idea of a wizard spending years cloistered away in a tower, peering over tome after tome, in order to master magic is meaningless when it doesn't provide some reward compared with the far less intensive studies of other careers? They don't need to be more powerful, but they need to have abilities that can't be replicated without spellcasting, otherwise they could have just played outside as a kid.

It's straw because nobody has suggested these ideas be put into practice.

[squiggit]

Or that the idea of a wizard spending years cloistered away in a tower, peering over tome after tome, in order to master magic is meaningless when it doesn't provide some reward compared with the far less intensive studies of other careers?

Both the Wizard and the Fighter spend their entire lives (and 20 levels) honing their craft. Determining which deserves more reward seems utterly arbitrary here.

[VoxRationis]

It's straw because nobody has suggested these ideas be put into practice.

I believe that someone suggested that it was a terrible shame that the Rogue had no magical abilities and that it would be better for the game if they did. Then I said that there were plenty of magical stealthy types and that people could "leave the rogue alone," and then this part of the discussion started. The same process, of course, has already happened for the fighter, by means of the "I'm not technically spellcasting because I'm called an initiator, not a caster" ToB classes.

[VoxRationis]

Both the Wizard and the Fighter spend their entire lives (and 20 levels) honing their craft. Determining which deserves more reward seems utterly arbitrary here.

Not true, even by RAW, and certainly not by a great deal of flavor. Starting ages for fighters are consistently lower than that of the spellcasting classes*, indicating greater time spent training before level 1.

*Except sorcerers.

[squiggit]

I believe that someone suggested that it was a terrible shame that the Rogue had no magical abilities

Not necessarily magical. But in a game where high end level 20 characters readily unmake reality and level 5 characters are already at the peak of normal human ability, a supernaturally talented rogue or fighter or barbarian is far from absurd.


and certainly not by a great deal of flavor.

But the flavor of a high level fighter is a master warrior who's devoted himself to his craft (even without flavor that's what he's done, that's what high level means). Suggested that somehow his levels are worth less than someone else's seems silly.


Or that numerous nonmagical but beloved characters from fiction, legend, etc., cannot be statted or even imitated in a system where everyone has a bunch of magic abilities?
Many of those legendary heroes aren't stattable in the first place* because they're supernaturally talented and 3.5 noncasters are head to an arbitrarily low standard. So that seems like a moot point.

*Except maybe as a wizard. The idea that a legendary warrior from an epic or high fantasy fictional story is better off as a wizard than the class they're supposedly based around should be a big red flag too.

[VoxRationis]

*Except maybe as a wizard. The idea that a legendary warrior from an epic of high fantasy fictional story is better off as a wizard than the class they're supposedly based around should be a big red flag too.

How would you stat Lancelot as a wizard? Or Gimli? Or Fafhrd? (The Grey Mouser dabbled a bit in magecraft, even though he doesn't really use it, so I'm not going to use him as an example.) Even a single wizard level would give the guy a bunch of abilities whose disuse would cause questions, and in any case wizards can't use armor or weapons effectively.

[squiggit]

How would you stat Lancelot as a wizard? Or Gimli? Or Fafhrd? (The Grey Mouser dabbled a bit in magecraft, even though he doesn't really use it, so I'm not going to use him as an example.) Even a single wizard level would give the guy a bunch of abilities whose disuse would cause questions, and in any case wizards can't use armor or weapons effectively.

Gimli and Lancelot wouldn't need to be wizards. They'd be level 5 or 6 fighters. Perfectly fine. The point in question was high level play. Bit of a strawman there.

But characters like Gilgamesh? Sun Wukong? Beowulf? Good luck making them work as your traditional fighter (maybe you could stretch the last one). A powerful fighter out of say, an anime? An Exalted character? Completely unworkable as a mundane without extensive UMD and magic item abuse.

[VoxRationis]

Not a strawman: a misunderstanding. You didn't actually say "high-level play" in your post where you said you'd have to give wizard levels to legendary fighters.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that there are no figures from legend and fiction skilled in both arms and magic, which is the statement your example counters; you're trying to disprove a statement I never made.

[squiggit]

Not a strawman: a misunderstanding. You didn't actually say "high-level play" in your post where you said you'd have to give wizard levels to legendary fighters.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that there are no figures from legend and fiction skilled in both arms and magic, which is the statement your example counters; you're trying to disprove a statement I never made.

Well I wasn't necessarily trying to disprove you, just remind that while there are some heroes who can't be made in a game where everyone is magical there's also some heroes who can't be made because their closest equivalents aren't talented enough.

Which is why I think it's okay for high level (level 10 or higher) "mundanes" to be supernaturally skilled. We already have epic DCs and all the stupid shenanigans HP rules allow a player to do (wander around on fire, wade through lava, walk around in outer space, etc.). Just expanding that, for high level characters in particular, wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.

Low level play is perfectly fine for what it aims to do. I just think that high level play in D&D really exists beyond the scope of traditional tolkeinesque fantasy fiction.

[VoxRationis]

Well I wasn't necessarily trying to disprove you, just remind that while there are some heroes who can't be made in a game where everyone is magical there's also some heroes who can't be made because their closest equivalents aren't talented enough.

Which is why I think it's okay for high level (level 10 or higher) "mundanes" to be supernaturally skilled. We already have epic DCs and all the stupid shenanigans HP rules allow a player to do (wander around on fire, wade through lava, walk around in outer space, etc.). Just expanding that, for high level characters in particular, wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.

Low level play is perfectly fine for what it aims to do. I just think that high level play in D&D really exists beyond the scope of traditional tolkeinesque fantasy fiction.

I'd bump the level at which mundanes get supernatural abilities up a bit, but you make a good point otherwise.

[Morty]

Simple: They didn't. The imbalance between weapon styles isn't in the weapon statblocks for the most part. It's largely in feat support and combat mechanics, areas of the game where the implications of a change are often not obvious, particularly since we're talking about people who are notorious for concentrating their playtest efforts on the lower levels where the cracks in the system aren't as visible. That's why exotic weapons usually aren't worth a feat slot (they're supposed to be, but aren't).

Speaking of exotic weapons, why in the world would a system that is honestly trying for "realism" have two-bladed swords? It wouldn't; they're there because some people would like to be Fantasy Darth Maul. And they should be able to.

As a further counterpoint, let me offer this question: If they wanted one-handing to be bad, why make a Duelist PrC at all? Why make any attempt to support and promote the style, if it was supposed to be a poor choice?

I'd add two more things - first off, there's absolutely nothing in the books to suggest that the weapons table is intentionally imbalanced. As far as the rules go, every weapon is supposed to be more or less equal to the other options in its category.

Apart from that, there's literally nothing realistic about D&D weapons. In history, weapons weren't usually "superior" or "inferior" to one another. They were used by different people against different opponents in different times and places. A pulp fantasy system like D&D throws them all together in a big mixed bag, so its job is to make them more or less equally useful. To say nothing about the completely erroneous terminology or the weapon art that makes axes look more like frying pans.

Really, the argument that finesse weapons and duelling styles are supposed to suck because it's realistic is a post-fact sour grapes-style justification - since the system fails to properly represent them, obviously they're not worth representing in the first place.