Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

[...]

I just got Tome of Magic the other day, so I wanted to know what people think of Incarnum, Psionics, Shadow Magic, and all the other obscure subsystems.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I just got Tome of Magic the other day, so I wanted to know what people think of Incarnum, Psionics, Shadow Magic, and all the other obscure subsystems.

Mostly they're great. There are a few bad spots, but even what's bad about them is mostly subjective. Like the Soulborn is mostly a pretty crap class, but can be quite nice to play in a low-op game. Psionics are broken as all hell, but so are core casting classes. What most of the subsystems suffer from is a lack of support. This is especially true if your DM is anti-web supplements.

The exception is the whole Truenaming system, which doesn't work correctly.

[Sith_Happens]

Psionics isn't exactly obscure.

Incarnum makes for great dipping and feat choices, but is hard to make heads or tails of as the main feature of a build.

Binding is pure awesomesauce, though if you don't go in with a good plan for your character you can quickly find yourself overloaded with options.

Maneuvers are the best thing to happen to melee since Power Attack.

Shadowcasting and Truenaming are bogged down by the awfulness of the classes that use them.

[Red Fel]

I just got Tome of Magic the other day, so I wanted to know what people think of Incarnum, Psionics, Shadow Magic, and all the other obscure subsystems.

Awesome, double-awesome, crud, and assorted.

What, you want more detail? Okay*: Psionics: Absolutely awesome, hands-down. A great system that's pretty easy to get the hang of, and almost as versatile in terms of available materials as classic arcane and divine casting. Maneuvers: Apart from suffering from bad editing, incomplete errata, and an absence of materials outside of Tome of Battle, martial maneuvers are quite possibly the best thing 3.5 ever did for melee. They are melee done right, in the best way. Incarnum: One of the greatest support systems, which sadly suffers from the same poor editing and lack of additional materials that afflicts maneuvers. Incarnum can be easily tacked onto any class or build for great versatility. Shadow Magic: A huge disappointment. The mechanics are awkward, the progression is weak, the classes are uninspired, the flavor is sub-par. Pact Magic: Very clever, and incredibly flavorful. Like Incarnum, it makes an exceptional supplement to any build. Truespeech: Absolute, total, utter crap. Such incredible potential, so hideously squandered. The idea was so good, but the Truenamer class is so awkward that it requires exceptional optimization just to function; the Truespeech mechanics are openly antagonistic and border on unplayable at the best of times. Invocations: Fun. Heck of a lot of fun. Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, whatever you want. The classes designed around these things are great, too - useful, all-day benefits coupled with simple, easy-to-use blasting abilities. And as a bonus, invocation classes count towards arcane CL for qualification purposes.
Does that help?

*The statements expressed herein are pure opinion, and should not be taken as absolute statements of quality. Seriously, read the books and form your own opinions on these things.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like 'em. I'm really glad they exist-- letting you make characters with almost completely different mechanics gives the game a level of depth and variety that most other RPGs can't touch. They also tend to be better balanced than vancean magic (with the exception of shadow magic and truenaming), so there's that.

[Shoat]

Psionics are way less "obscure" than normal D&D spellcasting is (as in: you have a mana pool that you draw from just as you're used to from normal video games). I never understood why anyone would have trouble grasping how they work, they're very straightforward even if you're trying to learn them from the SRD's psion class description instead of a psionics rulebook.

Invocations are a good middle-ground option. They're basic enough that a DM can just help a player set them up and then the player can have fun blasting and utility-ing around with their at-will toys (it helped me introduce a player who previously played exclusively melee brutes to caster classes).
Sometimes it appears a bit awkward balance-wise (we had a level 1 warlock take the shatter-like least invocation and wreck an entire adventure because most enemies happened to be brutes with two-handed weapons and without unarmed combat options), but there's way worse in that regard.

Incarnum and Shadow Magic I cannot comment on because I don't happen to have any material that includes it and no player has specifically asked about using them yet. Since those are the only times I read up on stuff, it just didn't happen yet.

[Psyren]

None of them are really "obscure" around here - they've been discussed to Hades and back, and there are detailed handbooks out for all of them. (Yes, even the tear-inducing waste of potential that was Truenaming.)

[Fax Celestis]

Shadow Magic in particular is a little borked as written, but you can pretty easily and succintly fix it in a multitude of ways.

[Jormengand]

If you bother optimising a truenamer, they are fun to play. I recommend that you try one before jumping on the TRUENAMERS ARE TIER 7 LOLOLOLOL bandwagon. You can get them up to low 3/high 4 if you actually bother making your truespeak checks decent (the reason my fix, for example, didn't actually change the truespeak DCs was on the assumption that you would actually take stuff to improve your truespeak check, rather than going for 18 int and max skill ranks and calling it a day).

So, basically what I'm saying is actually try it, and try making it work, and then make your own opinion on it. I get the feeling that very few of the 'namer's opponenets have actually bothered to play one, much less one with Skill focus (Truespeak).

[Necroticplague]

Define "obscure". This game's been out for years now, and once one has a book, the material is equally as easy to access as thtat in any other book. The only really "obscure" things I can think of would be Magazines, since those are subscription based, and thus only have one wave.

Anyways, on for the examples:

Psionics: Really easy to understand, and usually more balanced than vancian casting. Sometimes, the fluff is offputting (seriously, what's with psionics' crystal fetish?), but other times is good (honestly, the 'internal force imposed on world' is how I usually think of casters anyway). Augmentation system allows for finer control of resources, while lack of components less bookeeping is necessary. Covers a lot of the normal caster archetypes as well. One of the earlier subsystems, so it has a fair amount of support.

Incarnum: Honestly, this could use with a bit of re-organization in the book. As a main class feature, it often tends to have its minutiae get in the way (essentia capacity, shaped meld limit), and there is sometimes things which are a bit confusing (like Binding to you Totem chakra, which you can't Shape to). However, its excellent for just somebody who's looking for something to blow a class level on, or looking for a numerical boost from a feat. One of the later things, so the only real support is draconic soulmelds, some Dragon mag soulmelds, and some magic items.

Shadow: Honestly, the normal Shadow spells mean their's a hefty hunk of fluff overlap there. But anyway, it has some issues with it. The biggest one is how incredibly lacking in uses their abilities are. Not as in, how useful they are (a good hunk are pretty nice), but that they have very few uses in the day. IIRC, one of the dudes who wrote it later made an unofficial fix online that included 'turn per-day into per-encounter'. Also, exactly how the paths work can be a bit hard to understand.

Truenaming:It starts with a whole type of it not including the DC. Then, you have abilities that, by default, scale at twice what you do in difficulty (DC to perform: 10+2CR. Your Skill Ranks: 3+HD). So you pretty much need to use heavy optimization just to break even/keep up. My personal theory is that this was because 4e was being started on at the time (as ToM was one of the last books written), and they were testing out the idea (in 4e, defence scales twice as fast as offense). However, than you bring in things like "penalties for not taking up a large chunk of gametime to find some random mooks special name", "you take a penalty for having done this already today", and "you can't do this while the older version of this is still around". Its a nigh-unplayable mess, even though the concept is awesome and well-founded in fantasy.

Maneuvers: Allows for martial characters that have some variety in tactics, instead of sticking with one of two tricks. The fact that they scale in a somewhat spell-like level also means that you give high-level martial characters more appropriately mythical abilities, instead of just "improved version of what you already do #7". Gets a lot of hate for reasons I never quite understood. The fact they made the next edition a lot more balanced by switching everyone over to a system similar to maneuver using speaks well to how balanced it is.

[Ssalarn]

I just got Tome of Magic the other day, so I wanted to know what people think of Incarnum, Psionics, Shadow Magic, and all the other obscure subsystems.

I liked Incarnum so much but was so disappointed by the limited materials, I wrote a Pathfinderized conversion for Dreamscarred Press (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries) and have been working to include supporting materials in other upcoming Dreamscarred products.

Psionics is amazing. It's far better balanced than core Vancian casting, thematically interesting, and features some of my favorite classes and mechanics. It got a bad rap in 3.5 from people who didn't understand the rules abusing it despite being the best casting system in the edition, and unfortunately had a really weird and poorly balanced history in earlier editions.

Shadow Magic is thematically cool but mechanically crap. It's really easy for an inexperienced player to screw up their build beyond recovery, and even if it didn't have those pitfalls built into it it would still be a fairly mediocre subsystem power-wise.

The other systems.... Pact Magic was solid and the Binder was all right, nothing to write home about but thematics and mechanics were both solid. The Dragonfire Adept was basically a thematic Warlock archetype, but a really cool one. Truenaming was, again, thematically cool but mechanically terrible.
...
Any others you were wondering about?

[Jormengand]

"penalties for not taking up a large chunk of gametime to find some random mooks special name",
No, you get a penalty if you do try to incorporate a personal truename, it just increases the save DC too.


"you take a penalty for having done this already today",
And wizards have limited spell slots, this is just the equivalent to stop truenamers doing things ALL DAY. You can still fire off about five of each utterance per day without having to roll, so y'know.


and "you can't do this while the older version of this is still around".

You... often don't really need to. And you can cheat your way out of it by adding 5 to the truespeak DC if you really need to.

[Psyren]

Even if Utterances were at-will with no chance of failure only a few of them would be worthwhile. And the ones that are would be on basically every Truenamer such that they would all be clones of one another.

Yeah, the infinite healing/potion tiles and Gate might be a problem but the rest?

[AMFV]

Even if Utterances were at-will with no chance of failure only a few of them would be worthwhile. And the ones that are would be on basically every Truenamer such that they would all be clones of one another.

Yeah, the infinite healing/potion tiles and Gate might be a problem but the rest?

That's the main issue with Truenaming is that if you do optimize you get to the point very quickly where you can reach virtually all checks, and never fail. Which is why they don't even get a Tier. They never work as intended, either they never fail and a great deal of the intended flavor is lost, or they can't make any checks and don't function.

So I won't say it's that they're irredeemably bad, it's that they just don't work as intended, either they're better than intended, or they're worse than intended and they don't work the way they were intended to ever. It is really awesome fluff-wise. I hope DSP jumps on it next to be honest.

[Jeff the Green]

Shadow Magic in particular is a little borked as written, but you can pretty easily and succintly fix it in a multitude of ways.

In fact, it already has been (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?184955-Shadowcaster-fixes-by-Mouseferatu). By the original author, no less.

More on topic, I like all of them. I'm not enamoured of Incarnum as a base for a build because I like more flexibility within a day than they give, but I love dips and would recommend it to anyone who doesn't have my hangup. Binders are in the same boat. With Mouseferatu's fix Shadowcasters are eminently enjoyable, though most of the PrCs suck. ToB is awesomesauce. Psionics isn't really to my taste, but mechanically or with a refluff I like it.

[Fax Celestis]

That's the main issue with Truenaming is that if you do optimize you get to the point very quickly where you can reach virtually all checks, and never fail. Which is why they don't even get a Tier. They never work as intended, either they never fail and a great deal of the intended flavor is lost, or they can't make any checks and don't function.

So I won't say it's that they're irredeemably bad, it's that they just don't work as intended, either they're better than intended, or they're worse than intended and they don't work the way they were intended to ever. It is really awesome fluff-wise. I hope DSP jumps on it next to be honest.

*squints eyes*

*thinks*

*sends email*

[bekeleven]

Across the 3 optimization levels I cataloged, Truenamers vary 3 tiers (4, 5 and 6). That's the same tier variance as spontaneous casters like the sorcerer (2, 3, 4), Artificer (1, 1, 3), Psion without Psychic Chirurgery (2, 2, 4), Psywar (3, 3, 5), and fewer than the wilder (2, 4, 5).

It matters a bit more because in most games, tiers 2-4 are all playable, at least with a few gentleman's agreements. The last few tiers have a larger difference in playability in most games. Also, the lowest optimization level isn't generally played by people on this forum.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You... often don't really need to. And you can cheat your way out of it by adding 5 to the truespeak DC if you really need to.

Pretty confident I know the reading you're talking about, and I'm also pretty confident that it's considered really quite cheesy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I recommend that you try one before jumping on the TRUENAMERS ARE TIER 7 LOLOLOLOL bandwagon.
It's been done (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?114269-My-Experiences-as-a-Truenamer). The verdict was still "does not function properly." Leaving aside the "you WILL go book diving for bonuses if you want to make your checks, haha screw you new player" DC scaling, the utterances themselves tend to be either weak or dysfunctional. The flavor is gold, but I recommend using a homebrew rewrite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217713-A-Book-of-Words-An-Expanded-Truenamer-Fix-PEACH).

[Beneath]

Not addressing mechanics here b/c that's been done to death

Psionics usually have a place in things I run, though I would probably re-do the flavor and make it more about dreams and lucid dreaming in reality than sciencey-sounding.

I love the Tome of Magic things for flavor, particularly Binding, but Shadow Magic too (I'm kinda ehh on truenaming but I might throw a bit in on the side of other things). I'm setting up for a Pact Magic game.

Tome of Battle is cool, but I wish it weren't necessary. I'm less of a fan of it than I used to be.

[HunterOfJello]

Binding - awesome as hell, especially with dual progression through Anima Mage
Shadow Magic - has the potential to be fun but only with houserules to gives more uses per day (per encounter is likely best)
Truenaming - was not thought out properly or playtested properly before the book was printed. decent idea but the worst execution of any 3.5 base class.

Psinoics - great as long as your DM doesn't let a player turn it into a magic bullet versus magic. I knew a guy who constantly advocated for psionics to ignore all SR and antimagic fields. He changed his tune once he started DMing.


Tome of Battle - absolutely awesome. ToB is what 4e should have been and absolutely failed to emulate.


Incarnum - Totemist is easy to handle, but Incarnate is hard to wrap my head around and needs some better charts to handle properly. I often plan on learning the Incarnate class well but never get around to it.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Tome of Battle is cool, but I wish it weren't necessary. I'm less of a fan of it than I used to be.

This is where I've been moving to. I guess I just like the lower level maneuvers more than the higher level ones. Not for any good reasons, just flavor, I guess.

[Fax Celestis]

My only disappointment with ToB, which probably causes your disappointment with it, is that there isn't the horizontal depth that other systems received in their support. ToB has the vertical support (abilities that go clear up to 17th level), but it's only ever even talked about in the one book. Binders and incarnum got bits and pieces in places, psionics got it's own column, but I don't think ToB additions even ever showed up in a web enhancement or a Dragon mag.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's part of it. I think to me a lot of it has to do with just how strongly I prefer E6 and other low-level variants. The lower-level maneuvers are just more interesting to me used in that context than the higher-level maneuvers used in higher-level gameplay. I really enjoy that I can use Mighty Throw to toss someone out a window in a level 1 bar fight. Tornado Throw has never really provided me anything beyond relocate enemy and do X damage.

[bekeleven]

My only disappointment with ToB, which probably causes your disappointment with it, is that there isn't the horizontal depth that other systems received in their support. ToB has the vertical support (abilities that go clear up to 17th level), but it's only ever even talked about in the one book. Binders and incarnum got bits and pieces in places, psionics got it's own column, but I don't think ToB additions even ever showed up in a web enhancement or a Dragon mag.

On the other hand, psionics also got complete psionic.

[Beneath]

My only disappointment with ToB, which probably causes your disappointment with it, is that there isn't the horizontal depth that other systems received in their support. ToB has the vertical support (abilities that go clear up to 17th level), but it's only ever even talked about in the one book. Binders and incarnum got bits and pieces in places, psionics got it's own column, but I don't think ToB additions even ever showed up in a web enhancement or a Dragon mag.

ToB is pretty extensively supported in homebrew, though. I've written some of that, though not under this handle, and the time I played a Binder I didn't even know about the web support for it; I fell in love with the flavor (though, maybe I didn't have enough time to become jaded).

I guess, I wish fighters were good enough instead of being replaced with martial arts themed casters. I can see myself using ToB in a martial arts campaign if I ever did another one of those, probably with a few choice homebrew disciplines thrown in, but that's about it.

In comparison to other game systems, nobody would ever say a Dungeon World fighter would be improved by having martial arts moves that ran off a similar mechanic to the game's spellcasting. Which I guess is part of why Dungeon World is one of my favorite systems now.

[HunterOfJello]

My only disappointment with ToB, which probably causes your disappointment with it, is that there isn't the horizontal depth that other systems received in their support. ToB has the vertical support (abilities that go clear up to 17th level), but it's only ever even talked about in the one book. Binders and incarnum got bits and pieces in places, psionics got it's own column, but I don't think ToB additions even ever showed up in a web enhancement or a Dragon mag.

The cards that were added onto the WotC website were a pretty nice addition to use during games (though they did not add new content).

The only additional source I can remember where ToB material occurs is in Dragons of Eberron.

[Fax Celestis]

The cards that were added onto the WotC website were a pretty nice addition to use during games (though they did not add new content).

The only additional source I can remember where ToB material occurs is in Dragons of Eberron.

Yeah, and isn't that a gem of a book. -_-

[Jormengand]

It's been done (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?114269-My-Experiences-as-a-Truenamer).

But has it been done by you? Has it been done by everyone else saying it's terrible and unplayable?

My personal experience was that playing a truenamer was really, really fun, on multiple occasions, and if I really wanted to use a homebrew fix, I just used my one which just gave them more, bigger toys to play with. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?305453-The-Worldspeaker-%283-5-Truenamer-fix%29)

[kellbyb]

On the other hand, psionics also got complete psionic.

*snickers*

I usually like to forget Complete Psionic ever existed.

[Mithril Leaf]

But has it been done by you? Has it been done by everyone else saying it's terrible and unplayable?

My personal experience was that playing a truenamer was really, really fun, on multiple occasions, and if I really wanted to use a homebrew fix, I just used my one which just gave them more, bigger toys to play with. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?305453-The-Worldspeaker-%283-5-Truenamer-fix%29)

Most people are just saying that it doesn't function properly, not that it's terrible and unplayable. Chillax :smallwink:

[malonkey1]

*snickers*

I usually like to forget Complete Psionic ever existed.

Now, not everything in CoPsi is contemptible. RAW Ardent has an interesting Powers Known (it doesn't have a Max Power Level limitation written in), as well as having unique fluff and being a better "Psychic Cleric" than the actual intended one (Divine Mind, which was just silly). Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.


"Wait, you have an Illithid ancestor? Don't they reproduce asexually?"
"Yeah. I know."
"But how does-"
"I really, really, really do not want to get into that."

[Segev]

Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.

Clearly, the mother was Cerebromorphed while pregnant, creating a half-illithid hybrid with the hunger for brains but not the requirement to eat them, and all the powers but few of the weaknesses of Illithid-kind (including only having tentacles in his mouth, rather than outside where they're visible). He bred, producing the lines of Illithid-Heritage creatures.



(Why, yes, I do think half-vampires are silly. Why do you ask?)

[Ssalarn]

Now, not everything in CoPsi is contemptible. RAW Ardent has an interesting Powers Known (it doesn't have a Max Power Level limitation written in), as well as having unique fluff and being a better "Psychic Cleric" than the actual intended one (Divine Mind, which was just silly). Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.

I was actually a fairly big fan of the Lurk. There were a lot of mechanics there that were rock solid and which I would have enjoyed seeing brought forward.

[Chronos]

Psionics: Basically just spells, with a slightly different casting mechanic. The mechanic is probably a bit better-designed, and they had a bit less power creep than spells (mostly due to there not being new powers introduced in every book ever published) and different fluff, but yeah, spells.

Invocations: Do what they're designed to do. Very easy to understand. Weaker than spells, but that's not a bad thing. I would have liked official guidelines for how to turn other spells into invocations, and perhaps a larger class list of invocations to choose from in the first place (not necessarily more known: there are enough of those, if you're not trying to be as powerful as a full caster).

Incarnum: Very powerful, but only homeopathically: Any build that uses incarnum can probably do better by using less of it. Doesn't scale well with level, and the fluff is an absolute mess. Also a very poorly written book, with rules hidden away all over the place.

Pact magic: Great fluff merged together with great mechanics, written up very well with very few dysfunctions, need for houserules, or questionable interpretations. The book also includes feats and prestige classes which build on the base system strongly. The only problem is that it didn't get enough love from other books (though it did get some, at least).

Shadow magic: I really don't understand where they were coming from, with this. From the fluff, it feels like shadow magic ought to be the most freeform and flexible style of magic, but instead, you've got this rigid and overly-complicated framework of paths. There's some power there, but it falls afoul of Grod's Law. This is all aside from the not-enough-per-day issue.

Truename magic: Does not function as designed. You're forced to optimize highly just to be able to do anything at all, which may not even be possible, since most of the tricks you need are from other books, and many of them are banned in any other context. You're further burdened by a silly Law that you can't have multiple copies of an effect at once, most of the effects are lackluster, and you learn too few of them. There's almost no support for truenaming even within its own book: No prestige classes which progress utterances, no way of combining utterance-use with any other form of magic, very few feats which work well with it, and so on.

Tome of Battle: I wouldn't mind it as an alternative to conventional melee, but if the problem is "a lot of things outclass fighters", then the solution isn't to make even more things that outclass fighters. Fix fighters first (which really can be done, and quite easily too), and then we can talk.

[Svata]

Now, not everything in CoPsi is contemptible. RAW Ardent has an interesting Powers Known (it doesn't have a Max Power Level limitation written in), as well as having unique fluff and being a better "Psychic Cleric" than the actual intended one (Divine Mind, which was just silly). Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.

Anarchic Initiate was a nice, if slightly broken PrC, and Ebon Saint is pretty cool for a PsyRogue.

[Segev]

Fix fighters first (which really can be done, and quite easily too)

I'd love to see a thread wherein you discuss how to do this.

[Red Fel]

I'd love to see a thread wherein you discuss how to do this.

I think there was a book in which they did this, actually. Streamlined the class, made it more flexible, and renamed it "Warblade." It turned out pretty well.

I get the logic behind people saying, "It's cool that you have a melee concept that does better than the Fighter, but why couldn't you just fix the Fighter?" Thing is, I think they kind of did. It's not like they could say, in this single book for which there was no subsequent supplementary material, "We hereby declare the Fighter permanently deleted from D&D canon; Warblade is the new Fighter, full stop." Warblade was an option; it was a good option, and a perfectly acceptable replacement/fix for Fighter, if you were willing to use ToB.

I don't understand how, exactly, they could have gone back and completely revamped the Fighter. Issue an errata changing one of the definitive core classes? I just don't get it.

[Zaq]

Psionics: Lots of fun in the right hands. There's some missteps here and there (the Wilder is basically impossible to play politely, since they basically get A BIG HAMMER in their toolbox and nothing else; the Lurk doesn't get enough skill points or class skills, enough augments per day, or enough love in general; the Divine Mind doesn't need to exist), but overall, they're nearly as strong as Vancian casters at most levels of optimization, and they've got some fun tricks. It's nice that you can get by with only taking one or two strong combat powers, using the rest of your powers for utility stuff (seriously, do you REALLY need more than Astral Construct and Crystal Shard?). The PsyWar is a really nice implementation of the self-buffing warrior, though they really tend to run low on PP.

Incarnum: Awesome. I love Incarnum. The Incarnate is one of the best skillmonkeys in the game; their combat prowess is kind of hobbled, but they get fantastic defenses (they have some of the earliest access to a lot of immunities and a lot of defensive abilities) and amazing out-of-combat versatility. Totemists are champion face-eaters, and while they aren't as good at skillmonkeying as Incarnates are, they're not bad at it either. (They're mostly not as good at it because it's harder for them to spare the melds and the binds for non-combat stuff, rather than just because their melds aren't quite as skill-oriented.) Essentia is a really cool mechanic. The Soulborn is shameful, but the Incarnate and the Totemist are both awesome.

Truenaming: My love, my hate; my joy, my sorrow. The Truenamer is really, more than anything, frustrating. It's frustrating to have to scrape around for every last bonus just to function. It's frustrating to be so fiercely constrained in your options. It's frustrating to only be able to affect one person at a time. It's frustrating to know that the bulk of your abilities are done better—and almost always earlier—by other classes. I'm playing yet another one in my current 3.5 game (this one under a much less permissive GM than my last Truenamer was under, and at a lower level), and I'm strongly considering retiring him for something less annoying, even though I've built him about as well as can be done. You have to put so much effort into a Truenamer, and you don't get that much satisfaction out of it. When all is said and done, you just don't have that many tricks, and the tricks you have just aren't that amazing.

Shadow Magic: The Shadowcaster suffers greatly at low levels. They're like a 1e or 2e Magic User: very, very few spells per day, so you have to be REALLY careful about what you fire off and what you hold in reserve. When you get to be high enough level that you aren't hitting Crossbow Mode after a single encounter, they're not bad, though they don't have a whole lot that really makes them special. This is the greatest crime of the Shadowcaster: they don't feel that different from a weirdly limited Wizard or Sorcerer. As annoying as the Truenamer is, when I'm playing a Truenamer, I feel like a friggin' Truenamer; a Shadowcaster just doesn't get many unique tricks to brag about. If they had some at-will trick to play with, I feel like they'd be an interesting class, but they run out of juice so quickly it's not even funny.

Pact Magic: It's obvious that the Binder was the chapter of ToM that got the most attention and polish from the developers. The Binder folds its flavor into its mechanics better than any other class I can think of, and the suite of abilities you get is a lot of fun. The only thing I don't really like about the Binder is that they have way too many levels where they only get a single vestige per day, and it's only when you get two vestiges at once that you really feel like you have a lot of options, because then you can split your focus between combat and non-combat. Still, they're a lot of fun. I had a multiclass Binder/Incarnate once; that was a lot of work, but it was hilarious to totally reinvent the character's abilities every day. (He eventually went into Chameleon, though the game ended before he could play with that too much.)

Invocations: There's a lot to like here. I like DFAs better than Warlocks, personally, but both of them are fun. I feel like the Warlock takes longer to really shine; EB is nice enough at the earliest levels, but there's kind of a dead zone where you aren't great at damage (HFW and Eldritch Glaive both take time to come into their own) and you aren't great at debuffing (it's not really until Greater invocations that you get really strong debuff/BfC effects). DFAs are never great at damage (unless you can pull off a Fivefold Breath at something that somehow has no resistances by 15th level—not terribly likely), but they get great control effects right away—Entangling Exhalation is available at level 1, and Slow Breath is available at level 5. More than anything, both classes are easy; you never have to worry about running out of tricks (that is, after all, their entire schtick), and the tricks you get out of the box are pretty decent, so you don't have to spend too many resources just getting up to par. The Warlock famously doesn't need any stats to be high to be playable, but they do need to get Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot almost immediately; the DFA only really needs CON, and once they have Entangling Exhalation, they don't have any other must-have feats.

Maneuvers: These are where it's at for melee. They make full attacks not nearly as necessary (so melee folks no longer NEED Pounce, and simply moving away can no longer completely spoil your day), which is great. They do a good job of feeling different from each other; a Crusader does not feel like a Swordsage, who does not feel like a Warblade. They all have uses for swift actions, which is something that can't be said for a lot of non-casters. They're a little annoying to actually build; since you have to be aware of prereqs at all times, you basically have to build them level-by-level. (Compare this to a Sorcerer, for example; just pick so many spells of each level and be done, rather than picking what spells you learn at 1st level, what spells you learn at 2nd level, what spells you learn at 3rd . . .) Once you've built them, though, they're really easy to play, and they're about as multiclass-friendly as it's possible to get. It's technically possible to make a bad one (I've seen it done; it wasn't pretty), but it's hard.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

I'd love to see a thread wherein you discuss how to do this.

Quoth Red Fel:

I don't understand how, exactly, they could have gone back and completely revamped the Fighter. Issue an errata changing one of the definitive core classes? I just don't get it.
It's so easy, it doesn't need a whole thread, just one post, at least to describe how to do it. The fighter's schtick is feats, right? So the way you fix the fighter is by creating a whole bunch of really good new feats.

To cover the usual objections:
But feats aren't good enough! So make them better.
But everyone gets feats, how does that make the fighter special? Make feats good enough that a melee character will want to take twenty of them, and make feats that benefit from having a bunch of other feats.
But feats aren't flexible enough, and 11 or 19 different abilities doesn't give enough options So make feats that give you multiple different abilities, like the tactical feats.
But feats just give static bonuses, and don't scale with level So make new feats that do scale with level.
But feats aren't as good as real class features So make them better until they are.
But all a fighter can do is HP damage So create feats that let them do other things.

Now, all I've actually done here is describe the fix. Actually writing up all the needed new feats could fill a book (and should-- That's the book they should have published before Tome of Battle). But compare to, say, wizards: If the wizard class itself were exactly like it was now, but the only spells ever written were evocation direct-damage spells, then people would say that the wizard is pretty weak, too. But that doesn't say anything about the wizard itself, and such a crippled version of the wizard could be fixed just by creating a bunch of new spells.

As an example of what I'm talking about, some time back I homebrewed some feats I called "veteran feats" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-190066.html). They're usable by anyone, but work better for a fighter, scale with levels, and let fighters do things like inflict status conditions. I don't think that's a complete solution (the concept could almost certainly be improved further, and besides that's just a dozen or so feats, not a whole book of them), but it's a start. Get a whole bunch of developers working on it, not just one or two inexperienced homebrewers, and we could get it done. And it doesn't change one bit about the fighter himself.

[Fax Celestis]

It's so easy, it doesn't need a whole thread, just one post, at least to describe how to do it. The fighter's schtick is feats, right? So the way you fix the fighter is by creating a whole bunch of really good new feats.

To cover the usual objections:
But feats aren't good enough! So make them better.
But everyone gets feats, how does that make the fighter special? Make feats good enough that a melee character will want to take twenty of them, and make feats that benefit from having a bunch of other feats.
But feats aren't flexible enough, and 11 or 19 different abilities doesn't give enough options So make feats that give you multiple different abilities, like the tactical feats.
But feats just give static bonuses, and don't scale with level So make new feats that do scale with level.
But feats aren't as good as real class features So make them better until they are.
But all a fighter can do is HP damage So create feats that let them do other things.

Now, all I've actually done here is describe the fix. Actually writing up all the needed new feats could fill a book (and should-- That's the book they should have published before Tome of Battle). But compare to, say, wizards: If the wizard class itself were exactly like it was now, but the only spells ever written were evocation direct-damage spells, then people would say that the wizard is pretty weak, too. But that doesn't say anything about the wizard itself, and such a crippled version of the wizard could be fixed just by creating a bunch of new spells.

As an example of what I'm talking about, some time back I homebrewed some feats I called "veteran feats" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-190066.html). They're usable by anyone, but work better for a fighter, scale with levels, and let fighters do things like inflict status conditions. I don't think that's a complete solution (the concept could almost certainly be improved further, and besides that's just a dozen or so feats, not a whole book of them), but it's a start. Get a whole bunch of developers working on it, not just one or two inexperienced homebrewers, and we could get it done. And it doesn't change one bit about the fighter himself.

I did a similar thing with Perfecting Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?38300-Feat-System-Perfecting-Feats), a system I later altered into Investing Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?99519-d20r-Feats-Investing-Feats).

[3WhiteFox3]

@Chronos - If a fighter fix is so easy. Why don't you just do it yourself and post it? Veteran feats don't count because they are miss the problem with the fighter entirely. Big numbers aren't enough, you have to let the fighter do new things and not just when he crits. Also you need at least 3 or 4 times that many feats for it to be a viable fix.

The reality is that you'd have to put a ton of work into completely reworking the fighter bonus feats, that's not as easy as you make it out to be, you greatly underestimate how hard good game design is. The concept sounds simple but the reality is a lot of hard work, trust me, I've tried.

[Red Fel]

It's so easy, it doesn't need a whole thread, just one post, at least to describe how to do it. The fighter's schtick is feats, right? So the way you fix the fighter is by creating a whole bunch of really good new feats.

The thing is, what you're describing is a variant, or possibly even a new class altogether. Changing the feats available doesn't improve the Fighter as a class; changing anything but the feats substantially changes the class (whose sole class feature is feats).

If you're making it an ACF or variant, you're not fixing the Fighter, you're simply giving an option for a better way to play it - in which case, you could just as easily give the option to play a Warblade. If you're making it the Fighter 2.0, a New And Improved Class, you're creating a new class altogether - which is basically what the Warblade is.

What I'm saying is, there's this class. It's called the Fighter, and it's been more or less intact in core books since time immemorial. WotC couldn't change the Fighter class, as it was in 3.5, without issuing an entirely new PHB and completely revamping the Fighter. And what would they call that? D&D 4.0? D&D Next? Ludicrous, I say.

I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to invalidate your suggestions. They're good points. What I'm saying is that, in essence, you can't change the fundamental Fighter without removing the Fighter as it exists and replacing it with something else. Everything else - ACFs, variant rules, or similar classes - is an option, a thing you can take because Fighter needs more fight.

Warblade is an option. It's not the only option, but it's a pretty darn good one. The writers stepped back, and said, "How can we make someone who's good with weapons, and has numerous tactics other than 'I hit it with my sword', and has other, actual class features?" And they did. And it was great. Yes, they could have gone back and fixed the Fighter, I suppose, somehow. But perhaps - just perhaps - they looked at the Fighter chassis, the sad yet stoic Dodge Dart of the D&D world, with its sides rusted out, its windows absent, and a radio that does not play, but an engine that will never stop running, even after the stars burn out, and said, "Yeah, we could fix it... Or we could buy a Corvette."

We don't need to fix the Dodge Dart, is what I'm saying. There are Corvettes out there.

[Segev]

Actually, I don't think the prior two posts have addressed Chronos's point accurately. Both say "you've not written enough feats" or "you have to rewrite the Fighter." Chronos's point is that you can write FEATS that are effectively new abilities taht are "more than just numbers," and that you do NOT need to write new class features that aren't basically new kinds of feats.

He also acknowledges the amount of work that would have to go in to writing the Big Book of Feats that would make the Fighter's one class feature of "11 extra feats" something worthwhile on its own.

None of the counterpoints have actually addressed the claim that feats can be made which do "more than just bigger numbers" and which "give more options," nor that his proposal is ONLY to create new feats with new feat mechanics, not to touch the fighter's basic chassis at all.

[Psyren]

Getting them to T4 is all the fix you need and it's not hard. I would give them Lore Warden and Martial Master for free and call it a day. Then they could pick other archetypes (like Unarmed Fighter) on top of that chassis.

[3WhiteFox3]

Actually, I don't think the prior two posts have addressed Chronos's point accurately. Both say "you've not written enough feats" or "you have to rewrite the Fighter." Chronos's point is that you can write FEATS that are effectively new abilities taht are "more than just numbers," and that you do NOT need to write new class features that aren't basically new kinds of feats.

He also acknowledges the amount of work that would have to go in to writing the Big Book of Feats that would make the Fighter's one class feature of "11 extra feats" something worthwhile on its own.

None of the counterpoints have actually addressed the claim that feats can be made which do "more than just bigger numbers" and which "give more options," nor that his proposal is ONLY to create new feats with new feat mechanics, not to touch the fighter's basic chassis at all.

I'm not saying you can't fix it that way. Just that it's not as easy as Chronos claimed, it's a lot of work to make anything worthwhile.

[Segev]

I'm not saying you can't fix it that way. Just that it's not as easy as Chronos claimed, it's a lot of work to make anything worthwhile.

It certainly is a lot of work to do so. It would take a "Big Book of (high quality) Feats" to actually achieve, at a minimum. Conceptually, though, it isn't bad and is somewhat simple to get across, which is what I think his point was.

[Fax Celestis]

It certainly is a lot of work to do so. It would take a "Big Book of (high quality) Feats" to actually achieve, at a minimum. Conceptually, though, it isn't bad and is somewhat simple to get across, which is what I think his point was.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy860b?Monte-Cooks-Collected-Book-of-Experimental-Might-Hardcover

[Chronos]

Perhaps I should have said that it's straightforward, not that it's easy. It would, in fact, be a lot of work. But it doesn't involve changing the fighter itself any more than publishing new spells changes the sorcerer (sorcerer is probably a better comparison than wizard, now that I think about it).

[malonkey1]

If I were to fix the fighter, I'd do it by giving them choices of bonuses based on fighting style in place of some of the bonus feats.

For example, a Two-Weapon fighter that reduces TWF penalties, offers extra bonus attacks, or induces a penalty to AC on targets (all those attacks are throwing them off guard), or a chain fighter, specializing in trips, distance grappling, and disarming, or an archer that can make bank shots, disarm at range, or pin down enemies. basically, giving them more options than "hit this guy!". Alternately, make them jacks of all trades in combat, giving them abilities akin to the Aptitude Weapon enhancement, or the ability to use one weapon as if it were another (treating long swords as tripping weapons, giving a dagger reach, etc.).

[Vhaidara]

On fixing the fighter without making him warblade...

1. Fighter levels advance Initiator level fully instead of half
2. Fighters may choose Martial Study and Martial Stance as bonus feats
3. Fighters get a bonus feat every level
4. Fighters ignore the max 3 limit on Martial Study.

Done, a full BAB, d10 HD, full proficiency character with a fully customizable fighting style.

On topic...

Psionics: I haven't really gotten to play with it, but I want to. It has a better mechanical feel imo than vancian casting, PsyWar is a good gish in a can, Soulknife is awesome but sucks.

Incarnum: I am in a relationship with Incarnum. Some might describe it as abusive because every time I leave it nags me until I come back, but I still love it. Totemist is probably my favorite class in 3.5 for the blend of mechanics and fluff. Personally, I view Incarnate as a support/dip class. I do know that whenever I play gestalt, one side will involve Incarnate, Totemist, and/or Factotum, because they add so much utility for a few levels. Also, Totemist at level 20 can fire off 264d4 in a standard action. Double Bind Manticore Belt and Heart of Fire to Totem and their other Chakra, get the right Incarnum foci, x2 Expanded Soulmeld Capacity = 8 Essentia per meld, Totem Embodiment = 16 essentia, 16 spikes with 16d4 damage each. Suck it Hellfire Warlock!

Truenaming: This is the system I want to love so much, but it is just so bad. Difficult to use without crazy optimization, still weak with crazy optimization, no support, but such amazing character potential. Find a good homebrew fix. Make a Racial Sub class for Illumians, because Why doesn't that exist?

Pact Magic: The best thing to come out of Tome of Magic (My favorite book flavorwise, btw). Strong mechanics, good options, consistent fluff, great worldbuilding, and some of the weirdest monsters I've ever seen. 9/10, would play again

Shadow Magic: It needed its own book to be done right. It had so much potential, but I feel they just cribbed it down to be a third of a book. That said, I still love them, and am currently building a beguiler/shadowcaster/noctumancer,

Invocations: I agree with everyone saying "More!". Warlock was my favorite class until I was introduced to Incarnum and ToB. Now it's at 3rd after Totemist and Warblade. Personally, I want to see an Invocation Gish class. A warrior who uses long-lasting magic to enhance his combat. After all, the biggest problem with buff gishes seems to be getting your short-duration buffs up.

Maneuvers: So much more fun than other mundane options, with great variety. I'm saddened by the restrictions though, with 3 whole disciplines being Swordsage Only. I want Setting Sun on my Warblade for throws, damnit! Also, high level setting sun = fighting game characters.

[WhamBamSam]

Eh, I'm pretty strongly in the "Warblade is exactly what the Fighter always should have been" camp, but whatever.

I love all the subsystems, especially ToB. Even the ones I tend not to work with like Truenaming and Shadow Magic are pretty cool to see put together well by people who know them well. I still mostly dip incarnum, but should look into full meldshaping at some point.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I think the way to improve the Fighter is to make something worthwhile out of the various combat style and mastery feats. As it stands, most of them are pretty bad and at the end of extremely long feat chains. The chains aren't as big a problem, as such, but the investment totally outweighs the reward. As a side note, it has always infuriated me that Fighter is a PC class and Warrior is an NPC class.

[...]

*snickers*

I usually like to forget Complete Psionic ever existed.

What's complete Psionic? Is it another "complete" book!? Great! All the others were amazing, this one will be the best!
Honestly, I really like pact magic because of the roleplaying opportunities it gives you. Also, the fluff text of an ability is actually useful for once.

[Red Fel]

Actually, I don't think the prior two posts have addressed Chronos's point accurately. Both say "you've not written enough feats" or "you have to rewrite the Fighter." Chronos's point is that you can write FEATS that are effectively new abilities taht are "more than just numbers," and that you do NOT need to write new class features that aren't basically new kinds of feats.

He also acknowledges the amount of work that would have to go in to writing the Big Book of Feats that would make the Fighter's one class feature of "11 extra feats" something worthwhile on its own.

None of the counterpoints have actually addressed the claim that feats can be made which do "more than just bigger numbers" and which "give more options," nor that his proposal is ONLY to create new feats with new feat mechanics, not to touch the fighter's basic chassis at all.

Actually, I kind of did, albeit not directly, come to think of it.

My observation was that adding new options to the Fighter - I gave as examples ACFs and variants, but in retrospect feats are options as well - is simply that; adding new options. A DM could disallow the Book of Fighter Feats (hereinafter BFF, because awesome acronym is awesome) just as easily as one disallows ToB; it's an option, and if not taken it does not, in any way, change the Fighter.

Now, if an errata issued that said "The Fighter's Bonus Feat class ability only allows the Fighter to take feats from the BFF," you would have changed the BFF from an option into the new de facto Fighter. That, I acknowledge, would constitute an actual fix; a material and fundamental change to how the Fighter, as a class, is built. And it would probably be for the better.

But barring that, I fail to see how building the BFF and using feats therefrom, even assuming that they are all of superior quality and utility, is substantially different from using the Warblade. You're taking another (better) option.

Again, I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, or that it's not a fix. I'm simply not seeing the point, when a perfectly functional fix exists. In my mind, that's what Warblade is - Fighter 2.0, bigger and better. Perhaps a different question is this: Why are we not treating the Warblade as the Fighter fix? Because it has a different name? Because it has class features other than feats? Because it comes from ToB? This isn't a rhetorical question, it's sincere. If the complaint is that the resources spent on Warblade would have been better spent fixing Fighter, that complaint assumes that Warblade isn't a Fighter fix, but a Fighter replacement. What's the difference? (Note that I'm saying Warblade, but I could just as easily make the case for Crusader.)

If people feel this is a distraction from the OP (and I'm not sure it is, because it involves thoughts on the ToB subsystem) we can split it off into its own thread.

[Anlashok]

Why are we not treating the Warblade as the Fighter fix?
Because it's a spellcaster presumably.

[malonkey1]

Because it's a spellcaster presumably.

I think you're mixing up Warblade and Warmage.

[3WhiteFox3]

I think you're mixing up Warblade and Warmage.

A not-uncommon argument against ToB is that it's feels too much like spellcasting. That may be what's being referenced.

[AMFV]

A not-uncommon argument against ToB is that it's feels too much like spellcasting. That may be what's being referenced.

Well the problem is that it introduces a system that it is extremely based on planning and a series of diverse options, which is in a sense quite a bit like spellcasting. The same sort of thinking goes into picking maneuvers that goes into picking spells (at least for me). And building an initiator involves planning out your build not to lose too many initiator levels and to be focused on hitting them at the right points. It's very similarly in build and playstyle to a caster. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is an argument against "Fighters are broken play a Warblade instead". When one could say, "Play a Dungeoncrasher Zhentairm Fighter with two Levels of Barbarian instead" and you'd be better off or at least closer conceptually to what a fighter was to begin with.

As a note, I love ToB, Casters, and Fighters, I just recognize that playing a ToB class is very, very different in feel and thought process than playing a fighter.

[Necroticplague]

Giving better feats to the fighter doesn't help that the only class feature of it can be duplicated by a Persistent Heroics spell. And itsn't much of a fighter-specific fix, as it also effects Generic Warrior/Generic Expert, buffs humans and strongheart halflings, makes said Heroics spell more potent, increases the power of DCF, makes a good amount of prestige classes that offer feats better, and does nothing to change the fact that a lot of feats still aren't worth it, so you just make a new class of feats that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than these theoretical new feats.

[Segev]

Again, I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, or that it's not a fix. I'm simply not seeing the point, when a perfectly functional fix exists. In my mind, that's what Warblade is - Fighter 2.0, bigger and better. Perhaps a different question is this: Why are we not treating the Warblade as the Fighter fix? Because it has a different name? Because it has class features other than feats? Because it comes from ToB? This isn't a rhetorical question, it's sincere. If the complaint is that the resources spent on Warblade would have been better spent fixing Fighter, that complaint assumes that Warblade isn't a Fighter fix, but a Fighter replacement. What's the difference? (Note that I'm saying Warblade, but I could just as easily make the case for Crusader.)
As you say, a DM can as easily ban the BFF as the ToB. However, if you go to the kind of DM who gets leery over "new subsystems" and considers ToB "broken" because it has all these wonky abilities with recharge mechanics and ways for players to "cheat" around the limitations designed to balance these "OP" abilities that are like spells that you can spam every combat, but you can convince him that Fighter as it stands isn't quite measuring up, it's a lot easier to persuade him that "just adding a few better feats" is an okay thing to do.

If he's already okay with the ubercharger, and just hates the idea of "fighters using spells" or however he thinks of ToB, having a huge list of optional feats that up the Fighter's game may be close enough to what he already accepts that he'll allow it.

From another perspective, while there's nothing wrong with the Martial Adepts' subsystem, it has a flavor and feel that is definitely distinct from that of playing a "fighter" as people know and love it. If somebody really wants to play a fighter over a Warblade, they may not want to deal with expendable maneuvers. They may want the full feel of "anything I can do, I can do repeatably and reliably as long as I can set it up." Maneuvers abstract that "As long as I can set it up" clause with the "once per encounter" business.

So essentially, Warblade isn't the same class as Fighter. It is similar, but so is Barbarian and Samurai and Swashbuckler. And Rogue is similar to Scout. They're still distinct, and a desire to make Fighter - which has things people like about its feel (regardless of what you think about its only class feature being feats) that people want to play.


Giving better feats to the fighter doesn't help that the only class feature of it can be duplicated by a Persistent Heroics spell.That's more an issue with Heroics existing at all, and even so is not really a huge problem. Fighters can get Heroics spells, too, and they have more feats on top of it.


And itsn't much of a fighter-specific fix, as it also effects Generic Warrior/Generic Expert, buffs humans and strongheart halflings, makes said Heroics spell more potent, increases the power of DCF, makes a good amount of prestige classes that offer feats better,All true, but it still helps the fighter. And there are hooks for making it improve the fighter more or exclusively, ranging from prerequisites that include a minimum fighter level, to a "special" clause that gives fighters more benefit from the feat, to having the feat benefit from being held by somebody with greater numbers of feats (which fighters have).

And having more cool feats means having more feat slots is desirable; even if it buffs other things that use feats, it still buffs fighters by making each one of their extra slots more valuable.


and does nothing to change the fact that a lot of feats still aren't worth it, so you just make a new class of feats that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than these theoretical new feats.This is a non-argument, unless you're suggesting that we shouldn't have the ToB because it "just made a new group of classes that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than the ToB."

Toughness was rendered even more worthless when Improved Toughness came out. Not because Toughness was any good, but because even the pretense that it did something another feat didn't just plain do better was gone. So making new, useful feats isn't bad just because some feats - which aren't good in the first place - are rendered from "not worth taking" to "obsolete."

[Chronos]

Besides which, how is it a problem that more feats also buffs other melee types? They needed the help, too.

And adding new options to a game will always mean that some of the old options won't be used as much. That's true for every kind of option: Races, feats, spells, classes, whatever. I think that options are still, in general, a good thing. Like I said, what I'd really like to see would be cool warblades and cool fighters existing side by side in the game, both viable, but using different styles. If you like the warblade style better, play a warblade. If you like the fighter style, play a fighter. Or mix and match both of them in the same character.

[Ssalarn]

As you say, a DM can as easily ban the BFF as the ToB. However, if you go to the kind of DM who gets leery over "new subsystems" and considers ToB "broken" because it has all these wonky abilities with recharge mechanics and ways for players to "cheat" around the limitations designed to balance these "OP" abilities that are like spells that you can spam every combat, but you can convince him that Fighter as it stands isn't quite measuring up, it's a lot easier to persuade him that "just adding a few better feats" is an okay thing to do.

If he's already okay with the ubercharger, and just hates the idea of "fighters using spells" or however he thinks of ToB, having a huge list of optional feats that up the Fighter's game may be close enough to what he already accepts that he'll allow it.

***

The accuracy of this statement is actually really funny. I have a member of one of my play groups who hated 4e and always went on rants about its stupid power cards and how everyone is a caster, but he loves 5e. When I told him "You realize that there are still at-will, encounter, and daily abilities in 5e, they just simplified them and didn't present them in cards or refer to them that way, right?" he just stared blankly at me, pulled out the book, flipped through it, and said "I don't see it".

If you can come up with a system that gives a Fighter tactical feats that operate in the same fashion as ToB maneuvers, there's a very good chance that you'll easily convert people who hated ToB. I find it's almost entirely a matter of how the concept is presented to most people.

[Necroticplague]

That's more an issue with Heroics existing at all, and even so is not really a huge problem. Fighters can get Heroics spells, too, and they have more feats on top of it. How the heck does a fighter get acces to a spell? Last I checked, fighters weren't casters, so getting a spell requires either a friendly caster (which you probably shouldn't assume is there), or a magic item (which is created by a caster) that anybody else could also have.


All true, but it still helps the fighter. And there are hooks for making it improve the fighter more or exclusively, ranging from prerequisites that include a minimum fighter level, to a "special" clause that gives fighters more benefit from the feat, to having the feat benefit from being held by somebody with greater numbers of feats (which fighters have). The first two of which are heavy-handed bad design (you don't see rage-related feats with "barbarian 1" as a prerequisite for a good reason), and the third of which barely has barely any relation to fighter at all. After the first two levels, if your rewarded for more feats, you'd wanna dip around for 1 feat/level. Do you wouldn't be a fighter 6, you'd be fighter 2/generic warrior2/martial monk2.


And having more cool feats means having more feat slots is desirable; even if it buffs other things that use feats, it still buffs fighters by making each one of their extra slots more valuable. Yes, but we were talking about fixing the fighter, not increasing overall power level, so the fact it's fairly nonspecific to the fighter is relevant. It buffs fighters, but it can't be really said to fix them, because its not just about them.


This is a non-argument, unless you're suggesting that we shouldn't have the ToB because it "just made a new group of classes that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than the ToB." Except their weren't any classes made a waste of space by ToB existing. First two levels of fighter and monk still make for good build filler (depending on if you want saves or BaB), barbarian is still the easiest way to get pounce, rogue still has its trapfinding and gets access to sneak attack before swordsage, and paladins have access to spellcasting.


Toughness was rendered even more worthless when Improved Toughness came out. Not because Toughness was any good, but because even the pretense that it did something another feat didn't just plain do better was gone. So making new, useful feats isn't bad just because some feats - which aren't good in the first place - are rendered from "not worth taking" to "obsolete."
Unless you only have 1,2, or 3 HD. Or don't meet the prerequisites for Improved. Or if you want Toughness for one of the feats that need it as a prerequisite. Improved Toughness doesn't obsolete Toughness, though both are crappy.

[Chronos]

After the first two levels, if your rewarded for more feats, you'd wanna dip around for 1 feat/level. Do you wouldn't be a fighter 6, you'd be fighter 2/generic warrior2/martial monk2.
You can't be a fighter 2/generic warrior 2, because if fighter (and barbarian and so on) exists in your world, then generic warrior doesn't, and vice-versa. You could just keep on dipping for bonus feats, but that's going to hurt your BAB and/or restrict your options for feats.

And Toughness might not have been made completely obsolete by Improved Toughness, but it was made completely obsolete by Azure Toughness (which has exactly the same effect if you have no other incarnum in your build, including meeting prerequisites, but also offers added flexibility if you do have other incarnum).

[Segev]

How the heck does a fighter get acces to a spell? Last I checked, fighters weren't casters, so getting a spell requires either a friendly caster (which you probably shouldn't assume is there), or a magic item (which is created by a caster) that anybody else could also have.So...you're saying that the only people who benefit from Heroics are casters? Ooookaaaaay.......

And the fact that fighters can get as many of the items as anybody else, but the fighter still has more feats after that same amount of investment in Heroics items, is precisely the point.


The first two of which are heavy-handed bad design (you don't see rage-related feats with "barbarian 1" as a prerequisite for a good reason),If that that you mean, "Fighters not having any exclusive class features other than more feats is bad design," we can argue that. If you mean, "having feats which require a certain fighter level is bad design," well, no, that is because feats were, to an extent, MEANT to be fighter class features. You'll note that "must be Fighter 4" doesn't mean you ahve to be a 4th level fighter to take it, because the Warblade explicitly can pretend to be a Fighter for those purposes (albeit with a level penalty). So it's no more exclusive to the Fighter than the Rage feats are to the Barbarian.


and the third of which barely has barely any relation to fighter at all. After the first two levels, if your rewarded for more feats, you'd wanna dip around for 1 feat/level. Do you wouldn't be a fighter 6, you'd be fighter 2/generic warrior2/martial monk2.Generic Warrior doesn't fit in with the others, as it is expressly not meant for use with standard classes. It is for games that have nothing but the "generic" classes. But as you left out Psychic Warrior, the count remains the same.

Nevertheless, part of the point is the number of desirable feats, not just the number of feat slots. So while you can stack up feat count with that multiclassing, a well-designed BFF will have stuff that Monk/Martial Monk can't get access to, so the extra levels of Fighter or Psychic Warrior will be better to get more of those feats, rather than just scumming for trash feats for an extra +1 or 2.


Yes, but we were talking about fixing the fighter, not increasing overall power level, so the fact it's fairly nonspecific to the fighter is relevant. It buffs fighters, but it can't be really said to fix them, because its not just about them.Irrelevant argument. If it fixes the fighter AND other melee types, it still fixes the fighter. "It can't do anything BUT fix the fighter" is not just moving the goalposts, it's trying to reframe the argument so you can presume your conclusion of "the fighter itself has to be rewritten."


Except their weren't any classes made a waste of space by ToB existing. First two levels of fighter and monk still make for good build filler (depending on if you want saves or BaB), barbarian is still the easiest way to get pounce, rogue still has its trapfinding and gets access to sneak attack before swordsage, and paladins have access to spellcasting.


Unless you only have 1,2, or 3 HD. Or don't meet the prerequisites for Improved. Or if you want Toughness for one of the feats that need it as a prerequisite. Improved Toughness doesn't obsolete Toughness, though both are crappy.You presume an awful lot to declare that new feats would inherently obsolete old ones more than fighter and monk were obsoleted by ToB or Toughness was obsoleted by Improved Toughness.

I can make, with as much grounding (given the lack of the BFF's actual existence), the claim that all extant feats will remain as useful relative to any that seem to render them obsolete as does Toughness relative to Improved Toughness. i.e., you could construct a weird corner case where it is marginally better on some specific builds that are stuck at some specific level.