Healing Tank Cleric

[m149307]

I have heard that Cleric is more than healing, so I figured that tank fits under more too (unless cleric can do better stuff?). I want to make a Cleric who (as the title suggests) can tank and heal as well. I have a basic outline for the healing part (Mastery of Night and Day, Dragon Prophesier, Prophecy's Shaper and Prophecy's Shepard) but I don't know what to do for the tank part. Any help?

[Jeff the Green]

A couple things. First, other than heal, in-combat healing is almost always worse than trying to kill your enemies. Second, tanking in D&D is really hard because there's so few aggro mechanics.

However, you can approximate what you want with a Ruby Knight Vindicator. Cloistered Cleric 4/Crusader 1/RKV 10/PrC 5 is the standard build. The Crusader has some of the only ways to encourage enemies to attack you instead of your squishy friends and maneuvers that do damage and heal, making it not a waste of an action at all.

[Xerlith]

Cleric4/Crusader1/Prestige Paladin 1

With Battle Blessing.

Does it better. Finish up with Ruby Knight Vindicator.

Grab stances:
Martial Spirit
Thicket of Blades
Iron Guard's Glare

Grab healing Crusader maneuvers. Cure spells are on Paladin list? Good. You can quicken them. Grab Lesser Draconic Aura (Vigor) to heal up allies in-combat without needing to use up actions. Fast healing 1 in 30ft range. Up to half max HP only, though.

Feats:
Stand Still. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill)
Combat Reflexes

Google lockdown crusader.

[Red Fel]

A couple things. First, other than heal, in-combat healing is almost always worse than trying to kill your enemies. Second, tanking in D&D is really hard because there's so few aggro mechanics.

However, you can approximate what you want with a Ruby Knight Vindicator. Cloistered Cleric 4/Crusader 1/RKV 10/PrC 5 is the standard build. The Crusader has some of the only ways to encourage enemies to attack you instead of your squishy friends and maneuvers that do damage and heal, making it not a waste of an action at all.

Several times, this.

As mentioned, combat healing is bad, can be done in an emergency with spontaneous healing, and can be easily performed out of combat with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or Vigor.

Tanking is... Not what it is in videogames. Unless your DM decides, "Fine, the monsters attack the biggest, loudest thing," monsters will probably go after targets that look vulnerable (i.e. squishies in robes) rather than those who look thoroughly armored and armed. You'd need specific mechanics that penalize the enemy if they do anything but attack you.

As Jeff mentions, all this is done by Crusaders, and done well. Crusaders have mechanics for attacking enemies who get too close, mechanics for penalizing enemies who attack allies instead of you, and mechanics for healing allies without sacrificing utility. RKV, in addition to being a potent class in its own right, comfortably blends Cleric and Crusader into a pretty tough powerhouse.

What you have to do in the meantime is let go of two impressions of this or any class: That Clerics - or anybody - should be spending time healing in combat. That being big and scary and hollering at things is going to make them attack you over somebody else.The former does disservice to Clerics, because it feeds the impression that your job is to sit back and heal. It's not. The latter does a disservice to melee classes, because it gives the false impression that you need stability, instead of mobility. A good melee trying to save his squishies needs the ability to interpose himself between squishies and danger, and to occupy danger with tactics - such as knockdowns, trips, grapples, basically anything that keeps an enemy from acting. It's not tanking in terms of being a meatshield, but tanking in terms of keeping an opponent on lockdown.

[Jeff the Green]

Cleric4/Crusader1/Prestige Paladin 1

With Battle Blessing.

Does it better. Finish up with Ruby Knight Vindicator.

Prestige Paladin would fall under the "PrC 5" part of the build; generally I don't put the classes in the exact order you take them unless it's a more specific build.

Anyway, PrPaladin is a good choice, but there is some debate about whether it works with Battle Blessing, and it's going to be verboten in a lot of campaigns.

Other options are Radiant Servant of Pelor, Seeker of the Misty Isle, and Contemplative.


Unless your DM decides, "Fine, the monsters attack the biggest, loudest thing," monsters will probably go after targets that look vulnerable (i.e. squishies in robes) rather than those who look thoroughly armored and armed. You'd need specific mechanics that penalize the enemy if they do anything but attack you.

This is true of intelligent creatures and maybe some hunters, but probably not universal. A stupid creature acting in self defense likely would go after the obviously threatening loud guy. An enemy with a particular code of arms might want to duel with a fellow swordsman and let his minions handle the squishy wizard. And of course wizards have nothing of interest to rust monsters.

But it's entirely dependent on the enemy, which means it's dependent on the DM, which I find to be a bad thing if you want to play an effective character.

[m149307]

Ok, i have heard of the "Windicator" as people call it. I thought the CoDzilla was what I was trying to do the tank type? or was I wrong? I like the idea of Windicator, but lockdown seems boring.

[Red Fel]

Ok, i have heard of the "Windicator" as people call it. I thought the CoDzilla was what I was trying to do the tank type? or was I wrong? I like the idea of Windicator, but lockdown seems boring.

Let's be clear on something - Cleric is one half of the composite term CoDzilla (the other half being Druid) because it can do basically anything any other class can do, in many cases better than that class. However, very few classes can tank, so it should come as no surprise that tanking options are limited, even for the mighty Cleric.

Lockdown can be boring, but that's basically tanking. Nothing forces an enemy to attack you, and only you; the best guarantee is to use trips, grapples, and various lockdown tactics to prevent the enemy from attacking anyone. For example, one popular build involves using Thicket of Blades (to trigger an AoO against anyone moving through your threatened space), a reach weapon (to enlarge your threatened space), Combat Reflexes (to increase your AoOs), and either Stand Still (to cause an enemy to stop moving) or Knock-Down (to knock them prone, and thus stop them moving). Similarly, another popular option is to use Iron Guard's Glare (to encourage enemies to attack you instead of an ally), Combat Reflexes, Robilar's Gambit (to take an AoO every time they attack you), Knock-Down, and possibly Improved Trip (to gain an attack against an enemy you knock down).

These are some fairly standard lockdown builds. They're not particularly flashy; they're not about charging up to the enemy, cleaving them in half, or such; but they're good at tanking. That's the point - tanking is a fairly focused build design, requiring specialized abilities and particular feats. Clerics can do a lot of things, but tanking is hard for anybody, even for a Cleric.

[Jeff the Green]

Ok, i have heard of the "Windicator" as people call it. I thought the CoDzilla was what I was trying to do the tank type? or was I wrong? I like the idea of Windicator, but lockdown seems boring.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "tank". In the MMO terminology, it's someone who draws aggro and then either soaks the damage or has insanely high evasion so that the people who are actually doing damage (and tend to be squishy) don't die in one or two hits.. This is very hard to pull off in D&D. At lowish levels a grappler or, better yet, a Druid or Spirit Shaman with Greenbound Summoning can pull it off, but once you get to higher levels freedom of movement destroys that tactic. Knights have an ability to do it, but it's not very strong, it's limited in uses/day, and the rest of the class is godawful. Crusader can do it much better, with Iron Guard's Glare, the ability to give your shield bonus to an ally, prevent enemies from making AoOs, etc., plus of course their delayed damage pool. And Clerics can sort of do it, but only because they're full casters and thus a primary threat.

(I actually think lockdown is less tanking than battlefield control. And you're right, it can be very boring, though I may be a bit biased since I'm not fond of playing classes that don't have enough spells to use several different ones per combat because I'm a bit ADD and crave novelty.)

The other thing one might mean by "tank" is a melee monster who dishes out a bunch of damage and either never takes damage or can soak it up without fear of dying. In this case, Cleric is the gold standard, with armor, excellent buff spells, good PrCs, and a decent chassis. The only builds that might beat it in that regard are Druids and Wizards (though the latter has to do some extensive PrCing to manage it).

[NoACWarrior]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "tank". In the MMO terminology, it's someone who draws aggro and then either soaks the damage or has insanely high evasion so that the people who are actually doing damage (and tend to be squishy) don't die in one or two hits.. This is very hard to pull off in D&D. At lowish levels a grappler or, better yet, a Druid or Spirit Shaman with Greenbound Summoning can pull it off, but once you get to higher levels freedom of movement destroys that tactic. Knights have an ability to do it, but it's not very strong, it's limited in uses/day, and the rest of the class is godawful. Crusader can do it much better, with Iron Guard's Glare, the ability to give your shield bonus to an ally, prevent enemies from making AoOs, etc., plus of course their delayed damage pool. And Clerics can sort of do it, but only because they're full casters and thus a primary threat.

(I actually think lockdown is less tanking than battlefield control. And you're right, it can be very boring, though I may be a bit biased since I'm not fond of playing classes that don't have enough spells to use several different ones per combat because I'm a bit ADD and crave novelty.)

The other thing one might mean by "tank" is a melee monster who dishes out a bunch of damage and either never takes damage or can soak it up without fear of dying. In this case, Cleric is the gold standard, with armor, excellent buff spells, good PrCs, and a decent chassis. The only builds that might beat it in that regard are Druids and Wizards (though the latter has to do some extensive PrCing to manage it).

I'll agree with you that a good BFC artist is more tanking than most LD builds. Things like solid fog, black tentacles are invaluable for stopping monsters from doing their damage. The other side - crusader is a great tanking class which penalizes targeting anyone else besides the crusader. Inevitably as an aggro attention character you will need to self heal - cleric is one of the best for this as well - though it will cost a huge lvl 6 slot heal to do so.

There are other ways to make monsters attacks less effective, such as single target dr giving spells, or my favorite, shield other. While shield other is really subpar in most cases, if you can manage it get it cast on your squishies they suddenly have twice the hitpoints. It also allows you to do some self healing which you can do more effectively than healing others.

[Jeff the Green]

I'll agree with you that a good BFC artist is more tanking than most LD builds. Things like solid fog, black tentacles are invaluable for stopping monsters from doing their damage. The other side - crusader is a great tanking class which penalizes targeting anyone else besides the crusader. Inevitably as an aggro attention character you will need to self heal - cleric is one of the best for this as well - though it will cost a huge lvl 6 slot heal to do so.

There are other ways to make monsters attacks less effective, such as single target dr giving spells, or my favorite, shield other. While shield other is really subpar in most cases, if you can manage it get it cast on your squishies they suddenly have twice the hitpoints. It also allows you to do some self healing which you can do more effectively than healing others.

I think you misunderstood. I meant that lockdown is not tanking; it's BFC. BFC and tanking are different. BFC prevents enemies from doing anything. Tanking prevents enemies from doing anything but attacking you.

DR-giving spells would be buffing, not tanking (though of course it can make you better at tanking), but shield other is a decent way to tank.

[Pex]

I disagree healing in combat is bad. It depends on the particulars of the combat. It matters what the bad guys are, what PCs can do, and what spells you have. Your healing doesn't have to be greater than the damage an opponent does. What has to be greater is your healing plus the recipient's current hit points. That allows the recipient at least one more round to do stuff that could kill the bad guy easier than you. If a warrior type, his combat damage might be higher. If a spellcaster type, his attack spell might be more effective. Powerful as clerics are, they do not always Win The Combat.

Healing shouldn't be the only thing you do. However, it is an effective party combat tactic choice. Effectively doubling or tripling the party's hit points allows everyone else to be more aggressive. You cast the buff spells. You cast the attack spells. You also make sure every party member remains conscious for as long as possible. It's ok for you to get the glory of the kill, but it is not an absolute requirement or else you're doing it wrong.

[busterswd]

I disagree healing in combat is bad. It depends on the particulars of the combat. It matters what the bad guys are, what PCs can do, and what spells you have. Your healing doesn't have to be greater than the damage an opponent does. What has to be greater is your healing plus the recipient's current hit points. That allows the recipient at least one more round to do stuff that could kill the bad guy easier than you. If a warrior type, his combat damage might be higher. If a spellcaster type, his attack spell might be more effective. Powerful as clerics are, they do not always Win The Combat.

Healing shouldn't be the only thing you do. However, it is an effective party combat tactic choice. Effectively doubling or tripling the party's hit points allows everyone else to be more aggressive. You cast the buff spells. You cast the attack spells. You also make sure every party member remains conscious for as long as possible. It's ok for you to get the glory of the kill, but it is not an absolute requirement or else you're doing it wrong.

That's a general truism for healing (I main healer in a lot of games) that doesn't translate well to 3.5e. First, the non-healing stuff you can do is just so much stronger and more efficient than healing that you don't want to heal unless it's a last resort. Second, the only HP that really matters is the last 1; someone can be at 1 HP, and as long as they don't lose the last one, they're fully functional. Additionally, there are a variety of low cost resources that will allow you the best of both worlds.

This is not suggesting you ignore healing at all costs, but if you're doing a lot of in-combat healing, you need to seriously consider adjusting your parties' tactics.

[Jeff the Green]

That's a general truism for healing (I main healer in a lot of games) that doesn't translate well to 3.5e. First, the non-healing stuff you can do is just so much stronger and more efficient than healing that you don't want to heal unless it's a last resort. Second, the only HP that really matters is the last 1; someone can be at 1 HP, and as long as they don't lose the last one, they're fully functional. Additionally, there are a variety of low cost resources that will allow you the best of both worlds.

This is not suggesting you ignore healing at all costs, but if you're doing a lot of in-combat healing, you need to seriously consider adjusting your parties' tactics.

Exactly. Consider 1st level. You could cast cure light wounds and restore 1d8+1 HP (i.e. Far less than a warrior will do with an elite array and a two-handed weapon). Or you could cast shield of faith and turn away 10% + 5%/6 CL of all attacks (or reduce a theoretical optimal Power Attacker's damage by 4+2/6 CL per hit) for one or two battles and attack the enemy too because you can prebuff. Or you could cast bless and give your team as much boost as the bard's Inspire Courage, meaning that the team has a good chance of killing the enemy a round early.

And as you gain levels the difference grows even starker as damage far outstrips healing and spells become more game-changing.

You should absolutely heal when it's a matter of the fighter falling or making the final blow, and for that reason my Clerics always carry a few unicorn horns, but preventative healing is going to have much less of an impact than whacking an enemy or casting a different spell.

[Urpriest]

Besides lockdown and "taunts" and the like, there is another way to tank, via spells. Clerics have access to Shield Other and similar effects, and one of the better ways for a Cleric to tank is with spells that spread allies' damage to them.

[da_chicken]

I disagree healing in combat is bad. It depends on the particulars of the combat. It matters what the bad guys are, what PCs can do, and what spells you have. Your healing doesn't have to be greater than the damage an opponent does. What has to be greater is your healing plus the recipient's current hit points. That allows the recipient at least one more round to do stuff that could kill the bad guy easier than you. If a warrior type, his combat damage might be higher. If a spellcaster type, his attack spell might be more effective. Powerful as clerics are, they do not always Win The Combat.

Healing shouldn't be the only thing you do. However, it is an effective party combat tactic choice. Effectively doubling or tripling the party's hit points allows everyone else to be more aggressive. You cast the buff spells. You cast the attack spells. You also make sure every party member remains conscious for as long as possible. It's ok for you to get the glory of the kill, but it is not an absolute requirement or else you're doing it wrong.

Yeah, I tend to agree. I tend to play clerics as battlefield controllers, buffers, and, when appropriate, healers. I find the class far more rewarding that way. When the enlarged Barbarian can charge in with shock attack, pounce from spirit lion, and use whirling frenzy, well, keeping him going is going to do a ton more damage than I am. He's making hill giants explode into showers of gore, and cure spells effectively grant him more actions.

It doesn't help that I find so-called optimized builds completely unplayable. I played a cleric with Divine Metamagic and Persist Spell once, and I was bored with it after one session. I honestly do not understand the appeal of playing the game that way. It offers no creativity or depth, IMO, to play a cleric like a Dragon Ball Z reject. I don't even want to cast spells like divine power or righteous might. So boring. Summoning is worse. You get to do five times the bookkeeping and then just lose to magic circle, dispel magic, and corridors too small for large creatures or areas that can't be traversed by non-humanoids (e.g., ladders). The only thing worse is the prestige class ability buffet that most TO threads devolve into. So, you're a Chaplin/Jesuit/Benedictine/Orthodox/Protestant and swore oaths to each faction and were indoctrinated into their special class? Yeah that makes total sense.

The only problem I have playing a cleric is the problem everybody has. Every other player at the table says, "Wow, I took a fair bit of damage there". *Stares at cleric.* Yet another reason I'm excited for 5e. Heal yourself, dammit.

[Jeff the Green]

He's making hill giants explode into showers of gore, and cure spells effectively grant him more actions.

No, it doesn't. Especially with his AC tanked from Shock Trooper and this vulnerable to a Power Attack counter, no level-appropriate cure spell is going to have anything other than a minor impact. There are far better ways to keep him alive (e.g. shield other, miss chances, that poor-man's benign transposition in Forge of War whose name I can't remember), and most of them don't require an action in battle.


It doesn't help that I find so-called optimized builds completely unplayable. I played a cleric with Divine Metamagic and Persist Spell once, and I was bored with it after one session. I honestly do not understand the appeal of playing the game that way. It offers no creativity or depth, IMO, to play a cleric like a Dragon Ball Z reject. I don't even want to cast spells like divine power or righteous might. So boring. Summoning is worse. You get to do five times the bookkeeping and then just lose to magic circle, dispel magic, and corridors too small for large creatures or areas that can't be traversed by non-humanoids (e.g., ladders). The only thing worse is the prestige class ability buffet that most TO threads devolve into. So, you're a Chaplin/Jesuit/Benedictine/Orthodox/Protestant and swore oaths to each faction and were indoctrinated into their special class? Yeah that makes total sense.

While I also find summoning and CoDzilla builds boring (okay, summoning 1d3 greenbound giant crocodiles was fun once, but mostly for the image), you're entirely wrong about the "prestige class buffet." First, they're practical optimization. Theoretical optimization refers to things that really don't have a place in a real game, like Pun-Pun or the Omniscificer. Plenty of people play builds with a bunch of dips. I've played a 10th-level archer in a gestalt campaign, who had just cleric and one PrC on one side, and nine classes on the other (barbarian, marshal, warblade, paladin, battle dancer, fighter, swordsage, ranger, and witch hunter). Second, for the most part fluff is mutable. It's even called out in a number of religion-specific PrCs. Plus, there aren't a whole lot of builds for clerics I've seen that use even refluffed contradictory PrCs. There are enough good generic cleric PrCs that it's not necessary, and the order-specific PrCs tend not to mesh well. (RKV + RSoP is redundant, for example.)

[Pex]

No, it doesn't. Especially with his AC tanked from Shock Trooper and this vulnerable to a Power Attack counter, no level-appropriate cure spell is going to have anything other than a minor impact. There are far better ways to keep him alive (e.g. shield other, miss chances, that poor-man's benign transposition in Forge of War whose name I can't remember), and most of them don't require an action in battle.


Of course you cast other spells. We're not talking about casting Cure Light Wounds on round 1 of the combat. Cast Shield Other. Cast Protection From Evil. Cast Dispel Magic and debuff the bad guys. You certainly don't heal a party member because he got hit once. You don't heal the barbarian when he's at 35 hit points from max of 50. It's when the barbarian is down to below 15 or otherwise below what he'll lose when the rage wears off that you consider healing. It's when any party member is one or two hits away from dropping. If you really, really can kill the bad guy right then and there, go for it. If you can't but your party member can, keep him active. If a party member does drop, if the bad guys are about to be killed anyway, do it and heal after. If you can't, get that party member up and active and have him do it or make sure whoever is still up and active doesn't drop also so that player can kill the bad guys.

[da_chicken]

You know, I was going to talk about healing more, but this is more interesting.


While I also find summoning and CoDzilla builds boring (okay, summoning 1d3 greenbound giant crocodiles was fun once, but mostly for the image), you're entirely wrong about the "prestige class buffet." First, they're practical optimization. Theoretical optimization refers to things that really don't have a place in a real game, like Pun-Pun or the Omniscificer. Plenty of people play builds with a bunch of dips. I've played a 10th-level archer in a gestalt campaign, who had just cleric and one PrC on one side, and nine classes on the other (barbarian, marshal, warblade, paladin, battle dancer, fighter, swordsage, ranger, and witch hunter).

The difference between "practical" and "theoretical" is entirely one of personal opinion. Any build with a bunch of dips is unplayable to me. While the game can be that modular with levels in theory, it just doesn't pass the credibility test. It's hugely gamist, which, again, is absolutely fine in theory, but not in practice for the way I play. A certain amount of powergaming is acceptable and even desirable, but there is no set of circumstances that makes it likely or reasonable for a character inside the game world to make these class decisions. A Barbarian/Paladin/Battle Dancer is, on it's face, a sign of absolutely ridiculous alignment backflips.

A Paladin/Witch Hunter, while seemingly compatible, is actually excruciatingly unlikely. The Paladin explicitly does not exist in Kara-Tur or Rokugan, and the Witch Hunter only exists to inject Paladin class features into Rokugan or Kara-Tur. It's literally the Paladin class for the setting that does not have standard Paladins. Additionally, Kami's Grace is exactly a refluffed Divine Grace, so now you're having your cake and eating it, too. Either you're taking two classes whose fluff essentially excludes the other, or you've now got the exact same ability from two classes, giving you two bonuses from the same source, therefore you've got no stacking.

At best I say you picked a build which gave you the greatest mechanical benefits, then based on that formulated a rationalization for taking those classes in the most beneficial order, and then based on that developed what your character concept would have to be to be able to navigate classes in such a way. That is exactly backwards to the way I play. If I wanted the game to not be a challenge at all, that's what I'd do. That you and your gaming group do that and have fun playing the game that way is perfectly fine, but you would not be invited back to our table.


Second, for the most part fluff is mutable. It's even called out in a number of religion-specific PrCs. Plus, there aren't a whole lot of builds for clerics I've seen that use even refluffed contradictory PrCs. There are enough good generic cleric PrCs that it's not necessary, and the order-specific PrCs tend not to mesh well. (RKV + RSoP is redundant, for example.)

As I've said elsewhere earlier today, rephrased slightly: Not everybody is going to agree with the assertion that rules only exist only to provide game mechanics. Additionally not everybody is going to agree with the assertion that everything that doesn't provide game mechanics isn't a rule but is instead narrative context (i.e., fluff, although I find this term is generally intentionally dismissive). Third, not everyone is going to agree with the assertion that narrative context is more mutable than rules, either. Fourth, not everyone is going to agree with the assertion that just because narrative context can be muted that it should be ignored out of hand.

You might say that if we stopped allowing attacks of opportunity, or eliminated magic items, or prevented multiclassing or started using a d30 that we wouldn't be playing D&D. I would say that if you're dipping like a 3-year-old with fries and ketchup, you're not playing D&D.

[Jeff the Green]

The difference between "practical" and "theoretical" is entirely one of personal opinion. Any build with a bunch of dips is unplayable to me. While the game can be that modular with levels in theory, it just doesn't pass the credibility test.

While I will grant that the line is fuzzy, if the majority of people consider something PO, it is. (Sort of like linguistics, actually.) This is because it will be acceptable in the majority of games and, as such, is practical. I think you will find a very, very small number of Playgrounders agree with you that such dips are unacceptable. Heck, a minority of casual players I've met think it is.


A Barbarian/Paladin/Battle Dancer is, on it's face, a sign of absolutely ridiculous alignment backflips.

A Paladin/Witch Hunter, while seemingly compatible, is actually excruciatingly unlikely. The Paladin explicitly does not exist in Kara-Tur or Rokugan, and the Witch Hunter only exists to inject Paladin class features into Rokugan or Kara-Tur. It's literally the Paladin class for the setting that does not have standard Paladins. Additionally, Kami's Grace is exactly a refluffed Divine Grace, so now you're having your cake and eating it, too. Either you're taking two classes whose fluff essentially excludes the other, or you've now got the exact same ability from two classes, giving you two bonuses from the same source, therefore you've got no stacking.

Sorry, I should have specified Paladin of Freedom; there were no alignment shifts involved. While I did abstract the classes a bit, the progression actually reflected her backstory. She (a dryad, though not using the monster in the MM because it's unplayable) was initially entirely focused on her forest and tree, and ended up stalking and killing the men who cut down her tree, forcing her to bond to a piece of livewood (crafty hunter barbarian, battle dancer, and ranger). Later, she joined Cyre's army in the Last War and received formal training (fighter and warblade) and eventually became a talented commander (marshal). Finally, only a short time before the start of the campaign, she ended up hunting fey that had abducted a bunch of people and decided she liked protecting people more than seeking vengeance as she had been since the loss of her forest (Witch Hunter and Paladin).

Besides, the fluff of most of these are so ridiculously vague that combining them is trivial. Barbarian is a warrior from the outskirts of society. Fighter is a warrior who's spent a lot of time training in specific disciplines. Warblade is also a warrior who spent a lot of time training in specific disciplines. Ranger is a warrior who knows the woods (or, with ACFs, the city). Marshal is a warrior who is also inspiring to his allies. Put them together and you get... Aragorn, actually. Most of the elf warriors too.

And we were in Eberron, which explicitly states that every class, race, monster, feat, and skill ever published exists in the setting, so no, no setting conflict either. (Also, that's not what "source" means. It means, for example, the same spell cast twice, or an item that gives the same kind of bonus. It's perfectly fine to have the forces of good give you bonuses to saves twice over.)


If I wanted the game to not be a challenge at all, that's what I'd do.

Heh. Considering someone nearly died in every single encounter of that game and I kept running out of spells by the end of the day, I'd say I did it just about right. Maybe even not enough optimization.


As I've said elsewhere earlier today, rephrased slightly: Not everybody is going to agree with the assertion that rules only exist only to provide game mechanics.

Sure, but that take on the rules is a valid and WotC-approved option. The fact is that so many classes have vague fluff or state outright that they're refluffable and give suggestions on how to do it.


You might say that if we stopped allowing attacks of opportunity, or eliminated magic items, or prevented multiclassing or started using a d30 that we wouldn't be playing D&D. I would say that if you're dipping like a 3-year-old with fries and ketchup, you're not playing D&D.

Despite what you said earlier about it being okay, this comes very close to insulting my playstyle because it's not yours. Please don't do that.



Anyway, I doubt we will be able to convince each other on these points, they've been laid out pretty well for others, and I'm trying to watch my blood pressure, so I'm going to drop this line of argumentation past this post.