PDA

View Full Version : Over powered rule books



Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 01:07 PM
I personally found the book of Nine swords and the book of exalted deeds over powered, because the classes I saw in the nine sword had an endless amount of uses of there speciall abilities and the book of exalted deeds had super feats which I gave the title to How to make your monk even more horibaly unbalanced.

skywalker
2007-05-18, 01:10 PM
Complete Arcane is pretty rediculous. The Seven Veils Prestige Class and sudden meta-magic feats are rediculo. Sudden maximize... oh, the nightmares...

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 01:13 PM
:smallmad: ToB is not OP. Claiming a class is OP because it has unlimited/day abilities is stupid. Fighters can swing weapons unlimited/day. Warlocks can blow worthless abilities unlimited/day. What ToB does is makes a melee combatant viable with optimized wizards.

If you think monk is OP, you are beyond hope.

BOED feats might be OP in some respects, but most carry enough of a penalty, or a possibility of loss (see: paladin) that they are almost balanced.

Now on the other hand, IOTSOV, Incantatrix, Planar Shepard that new CC sub level, those are OP. Most things on their own aren't too OP, but those are.

In combination, DMM is broken with nightsticks and extra turning (persist), druid is borked, celerity is borked, time stop is borked, shapechange is borked, gate is borked, foresight is borked...

Hell, the PHB is borked.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-05-18, 01:15 PM
I personally found the book of Nine swords and the book of exalted deeds over powered, because the classes I saw in the nine sword had an endless amount of uses of there speciall abilities and the book of exalted deeds had super feats which I gave the title to How to make your monk even more horibaly unbalanced.

Oh, dear. The monk getting some usefulness? Can't have that. And if you're referring to Vow of Poverty (the much-flaunted monk feat), it's really not as good as you'd think for a monk. Druids can use it much better. Admittedly, the BoED does have some imbalanced stuff.

Tome of Battle (ie Nine Swords) is far from overpowered, however. It's one of the most balancing books to hit the shelves in years.

My vote for the most overpowered book? Player's Handbook 3.5.

InaVegt
2007-05-18, 01:18 PM
I personally found the book of Nine swords and the book of exalted deeds over powered, because the classes I saw in the nine sword had an endless amount of uses of there speciall abilities and the book of exalted deeds had super feats which I gave the title to How to make your monk even more horibaly unbalanced.

Tome o' battle gave fighter type characters a much needed boost (they can't compare to wizards at all), and while useful the feats in the book of exalted deeds aren't strong enough to make the powerless monk overpowered, useful at most. The saint template in BoED however is quite broken.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 01:23 PM
As others have said--the Tome of Battle is an excellent book; it does not add much in the way of damage capabilities to melee characters, it simply makes them more flexible and survivable--something they quite badly needed.
The Book of Exalted Deeds has a few problems, but those are largely with items (Retributive Amulet) and particular Sanctified spells. Vow of Poverty, which I presume you are referring to, is in fact a poor choice for a monk who is receiving anything remotely based on the Wealth-By-Level Guidelines in equipment. In addition, the monk is one of the game's weakest classes; I confess to being unable to comprehend as to how someone might consider it "overpowreed", unless they see the slew of abilities and do not pause to realize that the vast of majority of them are simply nothing to write home about.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-18, 01:25 PM
Tome o' battle gave fighter type characters a much needed boost (they can't compare to wizards at all), and while useful the feats in the book of exalted deeds aren't strong enough to make the powerless monk overpowered, useful at most. The saint template in BoED however is quite broken.
No it didn't.

Tome of Battle did NOT MAKE MELEE CLASSES ANY BETTER! It created new classes which were basically casters flavored as melee classes. Fighter, barbarian, paladin, and they're ilk were no better off.

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 01:26 PM
:smallmad: ToB is not OP. Claiming a class is OP because it has unlimited/day abilities is stupid. Fighters can swing weapons unlimited/day. Warlocks can blow worthless abilities unlimited/day. What ToB does is makes a melee combatant viable with optimized wizards.

If you think monk is OP, you are beyond hope.

BOED feats might be OP in some respects, but most carry enough of a penalty, or a possibility of loss (see: paladin) that they are almost balanced.

Now on the other hand, IOTSOV, Incantatrix, Planar Shepard that new CC sub level, those are OP. Most things on their own aren't too OP, but those are.

In combination, DMM is broken with nightsticks and extra turning (persist), druid is borked, celerity is borked, time stop is borked, shapechange is borked, gate is borked, foresight is borked...

Hell, the PHB is borked.

You say that a fighters abilitie is to swing its weapon when the calsses I'm talking about can do that and their new abilities, but I understand that most fighter types are underpowered its just that I'm used to playing a lot of low level games wich are over in two hours because every one is dead so in my games the fighter type is the most powerful usually.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-05-18, 01:30 PM
With your style of games, fighters are fine. However, at low levels Tome of Battle classes aren't much better than the original melee classes.


No it didn't.

Tome of Battle did NOT MAKE MELEE CLASSES ANY BETTER! It created new classes which were basically casters flavored as melee classes. Fighter, barbarian, paladin, and they're ilk were no better off.


Tome o' battle gave fighter type characters a much needed boost

Emphasis mine.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 01:33 PM
*Druid*
*Cleric*
*Wizard*
*Artificer*
*Archivist*
*Beguiler*

Obviously, no one knows how to play those. I look at your fighter. The artificer fires. How does 1d8+2d6+2 sound?

The druid entangles. How's the movement, fighter?

The cleric heals the fighter... nah. The cleric heals himself while fighting the fighter.

The wizard sleeps the fighter, and/or greases him for sneak attack, and/or uses color spray. And/or makes him too weak to use his armour. And does the laundry.

The archivist does almost everything the wizard, cleric, and druid do. And more.

You're the beguiler's best friend... Make a fort save now. DC 30. Ok, he cuts you in two with a poorly wielded scythe.

And unlimited uses/day is worthless when you only have so much to fight.

About the monk: Yeah, at -4 to hit. Ok... You can't even TOUCH another PC at that point. And hardly most mooks even. Take, for example, a naked, average, kobold. AC 13. You need a 17 to hit. And only on a full attack. And it does 1d6+ str mod.

And your fighter doesn't "Break out" of the entangle without a DC 20 str check. Even is he has 18 str, that's an average of 5 rounds. The druid slings bullets at his head, and the druid's animal companion eats him.

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 01:33 PM
I think I'll give them another try and I have a quick question if you take two weapon fighting with a monk can you have three attacks at firts level.

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 01:36 PM
*Druid*
*Cleric*
*Wizard*
*Artificer*
*Archivist*
*Beguiler*

Obviously, no one knows how to play those. I look at your fighter. The artificer fires. How does 1d8+2d6+2 sound?

The druid entangles. How's the movement, fighter?

The cleric heals the fighter... nah. The cleric heals himself while fighting the fighter.

The wizard sleeps the fighter, and/or greases him for sneak attack, and/or uses color spray. And/or makes him too weak to use his armour. And does the laundry.

The archivist does almost everything the wizard, cleric, and druid do. And more.

You're the beguiler's best friend... Make a fort save now. DC 30. Ok, he cuts you in two with a poorly wielded scythe.

And unlimited uses/day is worthless when you only have so much to fight.

Fighter breaks out of entagle and takes the cleric out in two or three hits while he's takeing the whole time healling, but the wizard yes and unfortunatly I don't know the archivest or beguiler very well so I couldn't try and find a way to beat them.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 01:36 PM
Yes, indeed you can... at -4/-4/-4. Meaning that you will not actually land a blow more than occasionally.
It is possible... which is different from being a good idea.

...how does the Fighter break out of the Entangle, precisely? He has a poor Reflex save, and it cuts his movement down even if he does. Meanwhile, the drud's war-trained Riding Dog animal companion meets him as soon as emerges from the Entangle and hits and trips him. The Riding Dog has more Armor Class and more hit points.

Khantalas
2007-05-18, 01:37 PM
Yes.

Each at -4 penalty.

What are three attacks gonna do if none of them can hit?

OzymandiasVolt
2007-05-18, 01:38 PM
How can he take three weapon fighting? What *is* three weapon fighting?

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 01:39 PM
Yes, indeed you can... at -4/-4/-4. Meaning that you will not actually land a blow more than occasionally.
It is possible... which is different from being a good idea.

...how does the Fighter break out of the Entangle, precisely? He has a poor Reflex save, and it cuts his movement down even if he does. Meanwhile, the drud's war-trained Riding Dog animal companion meets him as soon as emerges from the Entangle and hits and trips him. The Riding Dog has more Armor Class and more hit points.

Alright thank you.

Tellah
2007-05-18, 01:39 PM
No it didn't.

Tome of Battle did NOT MAKE MELEE CLASSES ANY BETTER! It created new classes which were basically casters flavored as melee classes. Fighter, barbarian, paladin, and they're ilk were no better off.

Melee classes can take the Martial Study feat to great effect; Moment of Perfect Mind stands out to me as a must-have defensive feat for a paladin or ranger.

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 01:40 PM
How can he take three weapon fighting? What *is* three weapon fighting?

I ment to say two weapon fighting I corrected it.

Jasdoif
2007-05-18, 01:40 PM
How can he take three weapon fighting? What *is* three weapon fighting?He's combining flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-05-18, 01:40 PM
Fighter breaks out of entagle and takes the cleric out in two or three hits while he's takeing the whole time healling, but the wizard yes and unfortunatly I don't know the archivest or beguiler very well so I couldn't try and find a way to beat them.

That'd be nice, were that the case. What usually happens is the fighter stays stuck and spends the whole combat hacking himself out. A cleric in heavy armor, with either a morningstar and shield or a spear/longspear, will be buffed beforehand and be just as effective as the fighter.

And then heal himself. Which, by the way, takes 1 turn, not the 2 or 3 you claim.

[Edit:] Ninja'd much. :smallsigh:

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-05-18, 01:43 PM
I think I'll give them another try and I have a quick question if you take two weapon fighting with a monk can you have three attacks at firts level.

That's an often asked question. Here's the answer:

First, you have to have either a pair of monk weapons or a double monk weapon to be able to do it. Monk weapons suck. Even a 1st level medium monk does as much damage as any of the monk weapons with his bare hands. By the time he hit's 5th level, he's doing more damage. So in return for sub-par damage, you're taking an additional penalty to all attack rolls. Very much not worth it, considering Monk is only a 3/4 BAB and a -4 to hit at 1st level (-2 from flurry and -2 from TWF) is painful enough that he's never going to hit anything.

Personally, I'd just as soon say TWF doesn't stack with Flurry and be done with it, but that would be a houserule.

Edit: Ninja'd...

Khantalas
2007-05-18, 01:44 PM
Actually, you can use your fists for TWF.

Not that it helps.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 01:44 PM
ToB is not OP. <snip> What ToB does is makes a melee combatant viable with optimized wizards. Looks like a contradictory statement to me...

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 01:45 PM
Looks like a contradictory statement to me...

How does "leveling the playing field" equate to "overpowering"?

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 01:47 PM
It is not accurate, either. The Tome of Battle helps, but it has nothing to equal what an "optimized wizard" can do.

The point, however, seems to be that the Tome of Battle may raise the power level of a particular kind of character, but it does not raise the overall power level of the game, as things on par with or superior to the Book of Nine Swords were already readily availible.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 01:48 PM
Fine. With good wizards.

Excellent point, as an optimized wizard just does something like wiz5/Incantatrix10/Archmage2/Abjurant champion 3.

Or, as the case may be, bard 7/Ur priest 2/mystic theurge 1/sublime chord 3/Mystic theurge 7.

Or abuses that new CC thing for wiz 3/mystic theurge 8/archmage 2/IOTSOV 7

Also, viable != as good.

I.e. people say warmage is viable.

EDIT: Cross out "Warblade" and write "Fighter" in. Ignore the warblade flavor text, replace with something you can think of. Voila, a "fighter". Is everything that prepares limited use abilities a caster?

Morgan_Scott82
2007-05-18, 01:53 PM
:smallmad: ToB is not OP. Claiming a class is OP because it has unlimited/day abilities is stupid. Fighters can swing weapons unlimited/day. Warlocks can blow worthless abilities unlimited/day. What ToB does is makes a melee combatant viable with optimized wizards.

In my opinion what ToB did was turn melee combatants into spellcasters of a different flavor, not meleeists. This was an effective way of making them compete with other casters, but really in my mind didn't do much to rebalance the Melee=!Caster equation since Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage are just casters of a different color. I guess I just have a problem with the way they went about it. Perhaps with more time I'll come to accept it.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-18, 02:15 PM
How, exactly, are they spellcasters? Their abilities involve melee attacks. A Warblade might hit things and never once do anything supernatural.

And, no, Arbitrarity--the Tome of Battle classes do not compete with good wizards, either. They are viable melee, but melee is weaker than spellcasting because it is so much more limited.
They do not compete with spellcasters; rather, they are capable of actually fulfilling their party role at all levels.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-05-18, 02:19 PM
They do not compete with spellcasters; rather, they are capable of actually fulfilling their party role at all levels.

Hear, hear! :smallsmile:

Morgan_Scott82
2007-05-18, 02:32 PM
How, exactly, are they spellcasters? Their abilities involve melee attacks. A Warblade might hit things and never once do anything supernatural.

They have a resource provided by a class feature with conditions and limits on its frequency of use, that has the capacity to create supernatural effects, whose power level scales with levels in a linked class. I feel this a good working definition for 'spellcaster' and believe that the ToB classes fullfil all aspects of this qualifier.

We may well have different opinions about what constitutes a spellcaster, and I would love the opportunity to debate that with you but I think first we must establish what we mean by certain terms, I've presented my definition for spellcaster so what does spellcaster mean to you, and how do the ToB classes fail to meet that qualifier?

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 02:32 PM
How, exactly, are they spellcasters? Their abilities involve melee attacks. A Warblade might hit things and never once do anything supernatural.

And, no, Arbitrarity--the Tome of Battle classes do not compete with good wizards, either. They are viable melee, but melee is weaker than spellcasting because it is so much more limited.
They do not compete with spellcasters; rather, they are capable of actually fulfilling their party role at all levels.

I agree also.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 02:50 PM
They have a resource provided by a class feature with conditions and limits on its frequency of use, that has the capacity to create supernatural effects, whose power level scales with levels in a linked class. I feel this a good working definition for 'spellcaster' and believe that the ToB classes fullfil all aspects of this qualifier.
I would think a better definition of spellcaster is "someone who casts spells."

That being said, spells are hardly the only scaling resource with use frequency limitations. Nor are they the only ones with "supernatural" effects. (And watch how you use that word. "Supernatural" has a specific meaning in D&D that differentiates it from spells and other abilities. Careless use can and will cause confusion.)

[hr]EDIT: Oh, I should have thought to check the Player's Handbook Glossary while I was at it. According to that a spellcaster is "a character capable of casting spells." Pretty close to my proposal, except as far as the PH is concerned, a spellcaster doesn't actually have to cast spells—onlty has to possess the capability to do so.

Dausuul
2007-05-18, 02:52 PM
As others have said--the Tome of Battle is an excellent book; it does not add much in the way of damage capabilities to melee characters, it simply makes them more flexible and survivable--something they quite badly needed.

Actually, I find it adds quite a lot to melee characters' damage capabilities in actual play. The thing about melee characters is that when people sit down to crunch a fighter's damage output, they usually make the calculation based on a full attack. Which is something you very often do not get. In my experience, a fighter type can expect to get a full attack maybe half the time. The other half, you're stuck with a move-and-attack or a charge... assuming you can reach your target at all.

With the Tome of Battle, it's possible to inflict decent damage with a move-and-attack. This is a drastic improvement.


They have a resource provided by a class feature with conditions and limits on its frequency of use, that has the capacity to create supernatural effects, whose power level scales with levels in a linked class. I feel this a good working definition for 'spellcaster' and believe that the ToB classes fullfil all aspects of this qualifier.

By this definition, monks, paladins, and rangers are all casters. When 95% of a class's abilities are oriented around melee combat, that's a melee warrior, not a caster.

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 02:54 PM
That'd be nice, were that the case. What usually happens is the fighter stays stuck and spends the whole combat hacking himself out. A cleric in heavy armor, with either a morningstar and shield or a spear/longspear, will be buffed beforehand and be just as effective as the fighter.

And then heal himself. Which, by the way, takes 1 turn, not the 2 or 3 you claim.

[Edit:] Ninja'd much. :smallsigh:

Sorry again I'm baseing all of my ideas off of the games I've been in where the player battles run completely off emotional highs and start/end in three or four rounds before the cleric can buff or before the fighter can take out more than one person.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 03:04 PM
They have a resource provided by a class feature with conditions and limits on its frequency of use, that has the capacity to create supernatural effects, whose power level scales with levels in a linked class.

...so, a barbarian's Rage makes him a spellcaster? Or a bard's Inspire Courage? What about a druid's Wild Shape? A cleric's Turn Undead? A paladin's Smite Evil?

The definition of "spellcaster" is "character who casts spells".

Kelyss
2007-05-18, 03:05 PM
:smallmad: ToB is not OP. Claiming a class is OP because it has unlimited/day abilities is stupid. Fighters can swing weapons unlimited/day. Warlocks can blow worthless abilities unlimited/day. What ToB does is makes a melee combatant viable with optimized wizards.

If you think monk is OP, you are beyond hope.

BOED feats might be OP in some respects, but most carry enough of a penalty, or a possibility of loss (see: paladin) that they are almost balanced.

Now on the other hand, IOTSOV, Incantatrix, Planar Shepard that new CC sub level, those are OP. Most things on their own aren't too OP, but those are.

In combination, DMM is broken with nightsticks and extra turning (persist), druid is borked, celerity is borked, time stop is borked, shapechange is borked, gate is borked, foresight is borked...

Hell, the PHB is borked.STOP FREAKIN ABRIVIATING! and yes i agree that some of those powers are reasonable, but does it not anoy you in the slightest bit that high level warlocks get to use uber powerful magic like abilities infinate times per day. not to mention they are ranged touch attacks.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 03:08 PM
STOP FREAKIN ABRIVIATING! and yes i agree that some of those powers are reasonable, but does it not anoy you in the slightest bit that high level warlocks get to use uber powerful magic like abilities infinate times per day. not to mention they are ranged touch attacks.

Uh, so? Unlimited != Broken. Ranged touch != broken. Warlocks do not get "uber powerful magic like abilities". They get poor imitations of weak spells that are usable at will.

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 03:09 PM
Uh, so? Unlimited != Broken. Ranged touch != broken. Warlocks do not get "uber powerful magic like abilities". They get poor imitations of weak spells that are usable at will.

He didn't say broken he said anoying.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-05-18, 03:11 PM
I would think a better definition of spellcaster is "someone who casts spells."

That would certainly be the simplest definition, but I feel that it too narrow, in my opinion psionic powers, many of the manuevers from the ToB, many of the effects from ToM, and probably other elements from books I am not familiar with, are spells in all but name. They create effects beyond the capabilities of mundane creatures lacking magical power and have limits on their frequency of use and power that scales relative to a related class.


That being said, spells are hardly the only scaling resource with use frequency limitations. Nor are they the only ones with "supernatural" effects.

As I tried to clear up above, I paint most in game effects that aren't possible in the mundane world and whose use and scaling are tied to the feature of a particular class as 'spells' in the broad sense. Whether the mechanic is called spells, psionics, utterances, mysteries, or manuevers, they're all things that I group with spells or at least 'spell-like' effects (note I mean spell like as in sharing elements in common with spells, not the narrow definition of "Spell-like ability" presented in the MM).


(And watch how you use that word. "Supernatural" has a specific meaning in D&D that differentiates it from spells and other abilities. Careless use can and will cause confusion.)

Absolutely correct, I appologize, and have attempted to be more clear in this post

Jimp
2007-05-18, 03:12 PM
not to mention they are ranged touch attacks.
Just like Disintegrate! Personally, I'd take the 2d6 per caster lever over a grand maximum of 10d6. By the time you can learn it any wizard that casts it (optimised or otherwise) will be rolling more d6s than non-epic Warlocks ever see.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 03:12 PM
I apologize for the abbreviations.

Translations of abbreviations:

ToB: Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords
OP: In this usage, overpowered, as opposed to over-priced.
BOED: Book of Exalted Deeds.
IOTSOV: Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (Where the second O came from I'm not sure, prehaps misusing)
CC: Complete Champion.
Sub level: Substitution level, as in, a level that can be taken instead of another.
DMM: Divine metamagic (Exchange turn undead attempts to apply free metamagic.
PHB: Player's Handbook (specifically, 3.5)

EDIT: *blinks at below post*

Cool. You can teleport 50 ft, move twice as fast as everyone else, and make 24 deadly attacks in 6 seconds?

Vulgosh
2007-05-18, 03:14 PM
That would certainly be the simplest definition, but I feel that it too narrow, in my opinion psionic powers, many of the manuevers from the ToB, many of the effects from ToM, and probably other elements from books I am not familiar with, are spells in all but name. They create effects beyond the capabilities of mundane creatures lacking magical power and have limits on their frequency of use and power that scales relative to a related class.



As I tried to clear up above, I paint most in game effects that aren't possible in the mundane world and whose use and scaling are tied to the feature of a particular class as 'spells' in the broad sense. Whether the mechanic is called spells, psionics, utterances, mysteries, or manuevers, they're all things that I group with spells or at least 'spell-like' effects (note I mean spell like as in sharing elements in common with spells, not the narrow definition of "Spell-like ability" presented in the MM).



Absolutely correct, I appologize, and have attempted to be more clear in this post

About the spells, first of all psionics are psionic not spell like and manuevers are phisically possible in reall life, and not spells.

Dausuul
2007-05-18, 03:15 PM
STOP FREAKIN ABRIVIATING! and yes i agree that some of those powers are reasonable, but does it not anoy you in the slightest bit that high level warlocks get to use uber powerful magic like abilities infinate times per day.

It would annoy me, if they got to do that. Since they don't, it doesn't. They get to use wussy-ass magic-like abilities. Where are these "uber powerful" abilities of which you speak?


not to mention they are ranged touch attacks.

...so?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 03:17 PM
and yes i agree that some of those powers are reasonable, but does it not anoy you in the slightest bit that high level warlocks get to use uber powerful magic like abilities infinate times per day.
I think the point is that invocations are not über-powerful. As such, warlocks do not get über-powerful magic-like abilities an infinite number of times per day, and we cannot be annoyed by something that's not true.

As for the abbreviations, see Common Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms. Most of the abbreviations he used are pretty standard. IOTSOV is not in that glossary, though. It refers to "Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil," a PrC from Complete Arcane. OP, in this context, means "overpowered," but it's more commonly used to mean "original poster."

Morgan_Scott82
2007-05-18, 03:19 PM
...so, a barbarian's Rage makes him a spellcaster? Or a bard's Inspire Courage? What about a druid's Wild Shape? A cleric's Turn Undead? A paladin's Smite Evil?

The definition of "spellcaster" is "character who casts spells".

Admittedly you've pointed out the lack of thurough consideration in determining my working definition. That said, in my opinion a barbarians rage, and a bards inspire courage fail to saticfy the 'supernatural' qualifier of my working definition, but yes the paladin, druid, and cleric are all spellcasters, and I might, though probably not, consider them such even if they didn't have a class feature that allowed them to cast Spells in the traditional D&D sense of the word.

There are effects that I believe similar enough to spells to be viewed in the same way, manuvers, utterances, mysteries, and psionic powers spring immediately to mind. I guess I lack a good way to quantify what is essentially a qualitative judgement on my part what is "spell like" and what is not.

I certainly concede that my opinion is not shared by many, and I may have been more extreme than others in what I called a spell. Suffice it to say that I believe many class features in D&D that are not called spells are similar enough to spells that I see those classes in the same light.

Manuvers are among those class features that I consider similar enough to spells to be viewed from the same perspective. Basically I see the ToB classes as giving the a melee oreinted classes a class feature that very strongly resembles spellcasting and then claiming that it balances the caster/noncaster equation, no it doesn't because you're now, in my opinion, comparing two different flavors of casters, not a caster and a non-caster. Many people like this approach, and I say more power to you, its just not the direction I would have gone to attempt to solve this particular problem.

Jasdoif
2007-05-18, 03:22 PM
Personally, I think ToB maneuvers set a great direction for class abilities to go in. Regulating ability use on the encounter scale, instead of the time scale. Eliminates the need to worry about if the party is fully stocked on spells and what-not.

As for Book of Exalted Deeds, there's a lesson to be learned there: Roleplaying restrictions don't make for good mechanical balance. Some of the "exalted" requiring feats/classes are more powerful then usual, and their balancing factor is supposedly that the characters have to be "extra good"; something that doesn't matter if the DM doesn't enforce it the way the book expects it to be, or if the game isn't RP-centric and "seriously acting your alignment" is deemed irrelevant.

Indon
2007-05-18, 03:24 PM
...so, a barbarian's Rage makes him a spellcaster? Or a bard's Inspire Courage? What about a druid's Wild Shape? A cleric's Turn Undead? A paladin's Smite Evil?

The definition of "spellcaster" is "character who casts spells".

Psionicists don't cast spells, but I consider them spellcasters.

That said, maneuvers strongly resemble spells, but have a couple differences aside from their gaining and loss methods:

-Not all maneuvers are supernatural (I think?), though some probably stretch the exceptional ability fold.
-Non-maneuver classes contribute some to your effective manifester (read: 'casting') level. This is important because it mitigates much of the "OMG Caster level loss sux!" to full casters.
-There exist feats that let you adopt and use specific maneuvers. Feats also exist that let you use spells as spell-like abilities, but they are generally not good feats at all.

brian c
2007-05-18, 03:27 PM
By this definition, monks, paladins, and rangers are all casters. When 95% of a class's abilities are oriented around melee combat, that's a melee warrior, not a caster.

Okay, Paladins and Rangers have spellcasting, but why did you group monks in there? They don't have spellcasting, and their abilities do orient around melee combat, though it's more of a "stay alive in combat" then "destroy everything in combat". Monk are not spellcasters under any definition, unless they've multiclassed.

At any rate, I don't know if you should consider Paladins or Rangers to be "spellcasters" either. They're melee-oriented classes that have the ability to cast spells, but it's misleading to say that they're spellcasters.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 03:28 PM
Psionicists don't cast spells, but I consider them spellcasters.

That said, maneuvers strongly resemble spells, but have a couple differences aside from their gaining and loss methods:

-Not all maneuvers are supernatural (I think?), though some probably stretch the exceptional ability fold.
-Non-maneuver classes contribute some to your effective manifester (read: 'casting') level. This is important because it mitigates much of the "OMG Caster level loss sux!" to full casters.
-There exist feats that let you adopt and use specific maneuvers. Feats also exist that let you use spells as spell-like abilities, but they are generally not good feats at all.

Most maneuvers are indeed not supernatural. Some (particularly those of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand) are, though.

As for "spellcasting", I understand what you're saying. A better word for what you're looking for is probably "utilizing supernatural abilities". Do note the lack of capitalization.

Dausuul
2007-05-18, 03:34 PM
Okay, Paladins and Rangers have spellcasting, but why did you group monks in there? They don't have spellcasting, and their abilities do orient around melee combat, though it's more of a "stay alive in combat" then "destroy everything in combat". Monk are not spellcasters under any definition, unless they've multiclassed.

The definition I was looking at was the one involving "supernatural abilities with limitations on frequency of use that scale with levels in associated class" (paraphrasing). Monks have such abilities, therefore by that definition they are casters. I was demonstrating why I felt this definition to be flawed. Personally, I would not classify any of the above as casters, even though they have some caster-like abilities.

Here's my set of "character categories." These are based not so much on the individual abilities as on what the character does in play.

Melee Warrior: Gets up close and personal with the enemy, fighting hand to hand. Can absorb heavy punishment and may "tank" for the rest of the party.
[B]Skirmisher: Engages the enemy at close range, but has less raw damage output and cannot take as much physical punishment. Compensates with mobility, stealth, and special maneuvers. [Melee ranger, monk, rogue.]
Support Caster: Uses special abilities to heal and buff the party. Often also functions as a secondary melee warrior. [Traditional cleric, traditional druid, bard. Note that bards have a touch of offensive caster as well.]
Offensive Caster: Uses special abilities to control the battlefield and attack opponents at range. Extremely flexible, with a wide array of utility and offensive powers. Fragile in melee combat and relies on evading attackers or hiding behind tougher party members to survive. [Wizard, sorceror.]
Archer: Attacks at range, generally focussing on a single target. Lightly armored and mobile, but still reasonably durable. [Bow-specialized fighter, archer ranger.]

Out of these, the crusader and the warblade are both clearly melee warriors, while the swordsage is a skirmisher. (Since we're discussing warlocks, I classify them as mostly archer with a sprinkling of offensive caster.)

*For those not familiar with the term, "CoDzilla" means "cleric-or-druid-zilla," and refers to clerics and druids who buff themselves heavily and wade into melee combat. So named because the right spell combinations allow such a character to outperform most of the melee classes at their own specialty.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-18, 03:48 PM
As I tried to clear up above, I paint most in game effects that aren't possible in the mundane world and whose use and scaling are tied to the feature of a particular class as 'spells' in the broad sense.
If you were to drop the 'particular class' part of that, simple skill checks would qualify for mid to high level characters...a fighter-20 can reasonably high-jump 8 feet on a roll of 1.


Personally, I think ToB maneuvers set a great direction for class abilities to go in. Regulating ability use on the encounter scale, instead of the time scale. Eliminates the need to worry about if the party is fully stocked on spells and what-not.
I really hate the concept of 'per-encounter' abilities, because an encounter is an artificial and badly-defined concept. Maybe I've missed something, for instance, but it seems to me a Crusader could reasonably demand to have their maneuver list cycling every round they're awake...

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 03:55 PM
If you were to drop the 'particular class' part of that, simple skill checks would qualify for mid to high level characters...a fighter-20 can reasonably high-jump 8 feet on a roll of 1.


I really hate the concept of 'per-encounter' abilities, because an encounter is an artificial and badly-defined concept. Maybe I've missed something, for instance, but it seems to me a Crusader could reasonably demand to have their maneuver list cycling every round they're awake...

An "encounter", when not in combat, is defined as one minute by skill tricks, which I dont' see as unreasonable. Another reasonable assumption is five minutes, which is defined in ToB as the amount of time needed to reselect maneuvers.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-05-18, 05:03 PM
I really hate the concept of 'per-encounter' abilities, because an encounter is an artificial and badly-defined concept. Maybe I've missed something, for instance, but it seems to me a Crusader could reasonably demand to have their maneuver list cycling every round they're awake...I was resistant to the idea at first as well. I've found it helps a lot to think of them not as per-day abilities that come back so much as viewing them as at-will abilities with a recharge time, similar to a dragon's breath weapon.

But yes, a Crusader can use his abilities out of combat, just as a Warlock can shatter the universe given enough time.

Dausuul
2007-05-18, 05:07 PM
If you were to drop the 'particular class' part of that, simple skill checks would qualify for mid to high level characters...a fighter-20 can reasonably high-jump 8 feet on a roll of 1.


I really hate the concept of 'per-encounter' abilities, because an encounter is an artificial and badly-defined concept. Maybe I've missed something, for instance, but it seems to me a Crusader could reasonably demand to have their maneuver list cycling every round they're awake...

"Per encounter" has its flaws, but for balance purposes I consider it infintely preferable to "per day." There are few things I hate more than mechanics which result in players stopping to sleep in the middle of a dungeon. It's utterly ridiculous.

How about this: Assume that any "per encounter" ability, unless otherwise stated, requires five minutes of rest to recharge. Light activity (e.g., walking) is permissible, but anything that requires die rolling makes it impossible to rest, as does any immediate threat.

Crusaders are a special case. I agree that their mechanic is botched. (Not only does it have the problem you pointed out, it's damn near incomprehensible too.) If it were up to me, I'd change it so that the crusader "draws" X maneuvers at random, each round. On the next round, whether those maneuvers were used or not, they get reshuffled into the "deck" and the crusader draws again.

Charity
2007-05-18, 07:31 PM
If it were up to me, I'd change it so that the crusader "draws" X maneuvers at random, each round. On the next round, whether those maneuvers were used or not, they get reshuffled into the "deck" and the crusader draws again.

That would render all of the counter manouvers pretty much pointless to the crusader would it not? They would simply never have them when they needed them.

Dausuul
2007-05-18, 07:42 PM
That would render all of the counter manouvers pretty much pointless to the crusader would it not? They would simply never have them when they needed them.

Depends on how often the counter is useful and how many maneuvers they draw each round. If you've got a 3/5 chance on any given round of having a particular maneuver, that's not bad odds.

....
2007-05-18, 08:41 PM
All of these 'problems' of balance can be solved by the DM.

I never got why people argue about how so-and-so wizard with eighteen different PrCs can utterly own this fighter or this paladin.

I dunno who sort of campaigns y'all run, but in ours we're usually fighting inhuman beasts, not each other.

As for some classes being weaker or stronger, I don't see that as a problem either. My regular character is a friggen abjurer3/master abjurer5 with Evocation and Necromancy as his forbidden schools. I do squat damage, especially compared to the Exhalted druid with Vow of Poverty and a dire tiger wildshape, but thats okay, because we have fun playing together.

If it bothers you so much, play a game where no splat-books or allowed. And hell, if spellcasters bother you so much, play a game where they aren't allowed (its actually pretty fun)

Raum
2007-05-18, 08:50 PM
All of these 'problems' of balance can be solved by the DM.Sigh, so many things wrong with this. It's brought up in almost every "balance" thread and answered. I'll pass on repeating it again.

I will repeat the answer to this one though:
I dunno who sort of campaigns y'all run, but in ours we're usually fighting inhuman beasts, not each other.It's not about making classes equally effective in 1v1 combat against each other. Most simply desire all classes to have a reasonably effective option no matter what your opponent.

Dhavaer
2007-05-18, 08:56 PM
All of these 'problems' of balance can be solved by the DM.

I believe this is referred to as the Oberoni fallacy. The DM's ability to houserule something does not make its non-houseruled form balanced.


I never got why people argue about how so-and-so wizard with eighteen different PrCs can utterly own this fighter or this paladin.

I dunno who sort of campaigns y'all run, but in ours we're usually fighting inhuman beasts, not each other.

It's generally more that the wizard can defeat the monsters, whereas the fighter cannot beyond low levels.


As for some classes being weaker or stronger, I don't see that as a problem either. My regular character is a friggen abjurer3/master abjurer5 with Evocation and Necromancy as his forbidden schools. I do squat damage, especially compared to the Exhalted druid with Vow of Poverty and a dire tiger wildshape, but thats okay, because we have fun playing together.

Doing squat damage as a wizard is generally a good thing. Wizards don't do as well at damage as they do at debuffs and save or suck/lose/die.


If it bothers you so much, play a game where no splat-books or allowed.

The power three classes (cleric/druid/wizard) stomp the weaker ones just as much if not more in Core only than with sourcebooks.

....
2007-05-18, 08:56 PM
I will repeat the answer to this one though:It's not about making classes equally effective in 1v1 combat against each other. Most simply desire all classes to have a reasonably effective option no matter what your opponent.

Sticking a sword in something is always effective.

Dhavaer
2007-05-18, 08:57 PM
Sticking a sword in something is always effective.

Not if you cannot reach it to stick your sword in it, or if it is better at sticking things in you.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 09:00 PM
Sticking a sword in something is always effective.
No. No it's not.

Look up "Regeneration", "Fast Healing", and "Damage Reduction". And that's just for starters.

Of course, that's assuming the actual goal has to do with hurting someone/something, too.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 09:15 PM
Sticking a sword in something is always effective.

Not if you can't hit him.

Raum
2007-05-18, 09:19 PM
Sticking a sword in something is always effective.
Really? At CR5 you can't kill a troll with a sword. Best you can do is knock it unconscious temporarily. If you survive to CR10 you'll have difficulty with Rakshasas. At CR15 a Marut has DR 15/chaotic and fast healing 10. And if you're resurrected often enough to battle CR20s, a Balor is likely to simply stun you (Power Word Stun) while it tears you apart with it's vorpal sword.

And those are all monsters who might actually go toe to toe with you. Good luck hitting the flying dragon.

SpiderKoopa
2007-05-18, 11:48 PM
You guys totally forgot about dracoliches, every mage smart enough to cast stoneskin, most golems... and yeah. =D

Jasdoif
2007-05-19, 02:58 AM
Have you even been "the third wheel"? You know, you're with two friends who so are busy interacting with each other that they don't seem to acknowledge your presence, and you're left wondering if they would even notice if you're gone?

That's what the player of a fighter in a high-level party feels like. If you're planning on melee, try to figure out how you're going to get close enough to the dragon to smack it without dying, and also get far enough away to avoid its full-attack-of-doom (again, without dying). If you're planning on ranged, notice the wizard's spells being far more accurate then your arrows, or the cleric simply casting divine power and simply being better then you at what you do.

The class balance issue isn't about which class can beat the crap out another in a duel. It's about classes being unable to contribute consistently in a group in a game. It's about not wanting a player to feel useless (or worse, debilitating) whenever combat breaks out (which is fairly often, this being D&D).

MeklorIlavator
2007-05-19, 09:26 AM
I find that the "my X could beat your X" are generally useful in that they show what happens when an NPC fights a PC. A good example of the NPC with PC levels would be Xylon, who is obviously a very powerful socerer. And we all saw Roy's effectivness against him once Xylon took off the kiddie gloves. That was a prime example of how melee classes generally fail against intellegently run spellcasters.

SpiderKoopa
2007-05-19, 12:59 PM
But this is not to say that fighters are useless though. Especially if he's enlarged, hasted, and has a nice beefy +5 vorpal sword of holding. =D
PS. Vorpal Sword of Holding = Vorpal sword that sucks the heads it chops off in an extra-dimensional pocket (much like a bag of holding's pocket) where later it can be fired out at catapult speeds. (My first character ended up getting one when the party completed the last quest of the campaign and were rewarded with a 'want'. Like a wish, only with no drawbacks from wording!)
Fighters are cool when they get buffs from the spellcasters.

Indon
2007-05-19, 01:12 PM
I find that the "my X could beat your X" are generally useful in that they show what happens when an NPC fights a PC. A good example of the NPC with PC levels would be Xylon, who is obviously a very powerful socerer. And we all saw Roy's effectivness against him once Xylon took off the kiddie gloves. That was a prime example of how melee classes generally fail against intellegently run spellcasters.

That's a poor example. Xykon's an estimated 5 levels (give or take) higher than the OOTS at this time in the story, and could probably kill the entire OOTS without breaking much of a sweat. That's pretty much how the fight would end with any member of the OOTS.

Of course, the OOTS is hardly optimized and most of the members contribute just fine, despite being solidly in the 'OMG casters overpowered' level range. The exception is Elan, the bard, due more to how he's played than his class.

But in the end, the OOTS is just a webcomic, and not a D20 campaign. But if it were a D20 campaign, it would be run quite well and seems like it wouldn't have any of the class imbalance problems cited so frequently on this forum.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-19, 01:55 PM
But in the end, the OOTS is just a webcomic, and not a D20 campaign. But if it were a D20 campaign, it would be run quite well and seems like it wouldn't have any of the class imbalance problems cited so frequently on this forum.

Playing a wizard badly (like Vaarsuvius) and thus having something of a balance does not mean the rules are not unbalanced in the first place. The discussions that appear frequently on the forums usually try to highlight this and point it out (and futily hope that someday WotC might hear them and do something about it... at least, I hope, but I think some others hope too).



Sticking a sword in something is always effective.

Lets not feed the troll guys.

And seriously, this Has to be trolling. The alternative is too insane to think about.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 02:49 PM
And seriously, this Has to be trolling. The alternative is too insane to think about.

You mean, what, naivity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlons_Razor

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-19, 03:28 PM
You mean, what, naivity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlons_Razor

In response to Hanlons Razor, stupidity is a far more terrifying thing to me then malice.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-19, 03:35 PM
In response to Hanlons Razor, stupidity is a far more terrifying thing to me then malice.
Doesn't make it invalid just because you find the implication scary.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-19, 03:54 PM
Also, you essentially just called someone a troll and an idiot.
Because they do not share your opinion on Dungeons and Dragons.

You may wish to reconsider this line of conversation.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-19, 04:17 PM
Also, you essentially just called someone a troll and an idiot.
Because they do not share your opinion on Dungeons and Dragons.

You may wish to reconsider this line of conversation.

He didn't mention anything about idiots.

Stupidity is the greater danger but malice is harder to correct.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-19, 07:33 PM
Peace. :smallsigh:

:smallsmile:

Starsinger
2007-05-19, 08:43 PM
A samurai focuses on his opponent, his mind clear, he waits until the perfect moment, and cuts his opponent down in one clean stroke. Diamond Mind has maneuvers like this. Not a spell.

A student of Judo is ambushed in an alley, she grabs her assailant and throws him away from her. Setting sun has maneuvers like this. Not a spell.

A fighter jumps above the enemy and uses the downward momentum from gravity to inflict additional damage. Tiger claw has maneuvers like this. Not a spell.

Some of the disciplines have more quasi-magical effects, but the little side bar on the first or second page of the book tells you the book has alot of Anime and J-RPG feel. The book isn't over powered. It takes the melee character type, and brings it closer to Wizard/CoDzilla's power level. Atlernatively, Tome of Magic takes the spell caster type, and pushes it back some. Now yes, it doesn't alleviate the fact that Fighter's a quick dip, but it does allow you to make a melee character who can keep up in use. The book's major glaring weakness is that it has almost no ranged support.

Vulgosh
2007-05-19, 09:25 PM
Really? At CR5 you can't kill a troll with a sword. Best you can do is knock it unconscious temporarily. If you survive to CR10 you'll have difficulty with Rakshasas. At CR15 a Marut has DR 15/chaotic and fast healing 10. And if you're resurrected often enough to battle CR20s, a Balor is likely to simply stun you (Power Word Stun) while it tears you apart with it's vorpal sword.

And those are all monsters who might actually go toe to toe with you. Good luck hitting the flying dragon.

At the point of fighting a CR5 oppenent you will probably be able to buy or have already found a weapon that deals fire damage so you can kill a troll, and for the Marut have the cleric cast align weapon on the fighter's sword, and if you ever get up to fighting a Balor all of your fighter typs will probably have over 150 hit points, but for any of these said encounters you will probably have at least one Arcane and divine spell casters on your team to assist you in all of these because one of the points of DnD is to work as a team to exploit each of the party members strong points and gaurd their weak points.

Vulgosh
2007-05-19, 09:30 PM
No. No it's not.

Look up "Regeneration", "Fast Healing", and "Damage Reduction". And that's just for starters.

Of course, that's assuming the actual goal has to do with hurting someone/something, too.

Regeneration, and Fast healling are still a problem for spell casters and instead of damage reduction there is magic resistence.

Dhavaer
2007-05-19, 09:34 PM
Regeneration, and Fast healling are still a problem for spell casters and instead of damage reduction there is magic resistence.

Regeneration and fast healing are only problems when dealing hit point damage. Spell resistance is not comparable to damage reduction, it's closer to armour class, and in any case it's rare, easily overcome and can be bypassed.

MeklorIlavator
2007-05-19, 09:36 PM
That's a poor example. Xykon's an estimated 5 levels (give or take) higher than the OOTS at this time in the story, and could probably kill the entire OOTS without breaking much of a sweat. That's pretty much how the fight would end with any member of the OOTS.

Of course, the OOTS is hardly optimized and most of the members contribute just fine, despite being solidly in the 'OMG casters overpowered' level range. The exception is Elan, the bard, due more to how he's played than his class.

But in the end, the OOTS is just a webcomic, and not a D20 campaign. But if it were a D20 campaign, it would be run quite well and seems like it wouldn't have any of the class imbalance problems cited so frequently on this forum.

What would happen if Roy was a higher level? I don't remember a fighter bonus feat that allows a fighter to fly. And Xykon did the worst tactic for a spellcaster, direct damage. And it's esecially bad against a Fighter, who has the 2nd highest hit dice. My point was that Xykon had won from the begining! And the thing that allowed his victory was a low level spell, something that many casters would have avalible, namely overland flight. What could even an optimized fighter do against it?

And, yes OotS is a web comic, but on based on the mechanics of DnD. And therefore, its is an easily reachable example, and is all the more effective, because it is in a visual format. Yes, there would be problems with a direct translation between DnD and OotS, but they are not significant enought to make them completely unrelatable.

And the lack of imbalances in the party stem from the fact that the party activly curb themselves. And the Giant recognises the imbalances (notice the storyline with the druid). If someone intentially handicaps themselves in a game so that new players can get better, do we consider them to be normally inferior? If not, then why do we insist that sub-par builds prove a class is balanced, or that other classes are gbetter in comparision.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-19, 09:37 PM
SR? You mean, magic AC?

Regeneration isn't a problem with finger of death. Nor baleful polymorph, nor any save or suck. Guess what smart wizards use?

SR is like AC to casters, and any well played wizard has Assay Resistance.

Claiming that you're useful because you need the other characters... the other character's still don't need you. You can swing your sword, but not at flying things, nor immune/resistant things. And you can't swing as well as CoD can. Because, really, your strong points are the same as some casters. Therefore, you aren't needed.

And that's the problem with fighters, at medium/high levels. They aren't needed.

Then, they get an inferiority complex from being told that.

MeklorIlavator
2007-05-19, 09:46 PM
At the point of fighting a CR5 oppenent you will probably be able to buy or have already found a weapon that deals fire damage so you can kill a troll, and for the Marut have the cleric cast align weapon on the fighter's sword, and if you ever get up to fighting a Balor all of your fighter typs will probably have over 150 hit points, but for any of these said encounters you will probably have at least one Arcane and divine spell casters on your team to assist you in all of these because one of the points of DnD is to work as a team to exploit each of the party members strong points and gaurd their weak points.

If the party has to do all this so that the fighter can kill stuff, what does the fighter contribute on his own? Health? Damage? Tanking?
For the First two, a cleric or druid can do it just as well, but usually do it much better. Tanking is a tricky issue, as the only class that truely tanks is the Knight, but besides that, the Cleric or Druis do it much better. So, if the only thing that a class does can be done better, and more efficently, by another, why not repalce the one with the other. I think this, if nothing else, is a compeling argument that the class is unbalanced.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-19, 09:57 PM
Regeneration, and Fast healling are still a problem for spell casters and instead of damage reduction there is magic resistence.
I believe my comment was in response to, "Sticking a sword in something is always effective." Even if what you aid about those abilities being a problem for spell casters was true (which it's not), it still would not make sticking a sword in enemies with these abilities any more effective.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-19, 10:06 PM
Spell resistance is not comparable to damage reduction, it's closer to armour class, and in any case it's rare, easily overcome and can be bypassed.
Though, to be excessively fair, there is energy resistance/immunity, which I think is more common than damage reduction. Not that it really matters since the big secret of effectiveness is to never attack hit points...

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-19, 11:12 PM
Regeneration, and Fast healling are still a problem for spell casters and instead of damage reduction there is magic resistence.
Except for the many spells that don't allow Spell Resistance.

Indon
2007-05-19, 11:45 PM
What would happen if Roy was a higher level? I don't remember a fighter bonus feat that allows a fighter to fly. And Xykon did the worst tactic for a spellcaster, direct damage. And it's esecially bad against a Fighter, who has the 2nd highest hit dice. My point was that Xykon had won from the begining! And the thing that allowed his victory was a low level spell, something that many casters would have avalible, namely overland flight. What could even an optimized fighter do against it?


Grapple. Xykon's not optimized, as you noted, and it's unlikely he casts Extended Freedom of Movement every morning when he wakes up. Roy wouldn't even have to be optimized to do that; he would probably, however, need to be higher level to make the save for the paralyzing touch reliably, and even then it's risky... but this would be because Xykon is a lich, not a sorceror.

Yes, I know an optimized sorceror can defeat everything concievable ever (except, of course, an optimized wizard, anyway).

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-20, 12:29 AM
Grapple. Xykon's not optimized, as you noted, and it's unlikely he casts Extended Freedom of Movement every morning when he wakes up. Roy wouldn't even have to be optimized to do that; he would probably, however, need to be higher level to make the save for the paralyzing touch reliably, and even then it's risky... but this would be because Xykon is a lich, not a sorceror.

Yes, I know an optimized sorceror can defeat everything concievable ever (except, of course, an optimized wizard, anyway).
Okay, this is kind of pointless. Roy vs. Xykon is not an example of Fighter/Caster dynamics, because it is part of a story in which Xykon kills Roy to further the plot, and the game mechanics are of only secondary (if that) importance.

Also, the Fighter/Caster debate is not about which class can defeat the other, it is about which class performs better in a campaign.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-20, 05:19 AM
Doesn't make it invalid just because you find the implication scary.

Never said it was invalid, just explaining why I said: "this Has to be trolling. The alternative is too insane to think about".

At least, I think that's what it was about.



Also, you essentially just called someone a troll and an idiot.
Because they do not share your opinion on Dungeons and Dragons.

You may wish to reconsider this line of conversation.

1) I never named him an idiot. I did however, strongly imply that he either is unintentionally disrespectful to the forum by posting something akin to an "informed opinion" without having bothered to read and gain information on the forum first, or he's intentionally disrespectful, and thus trolling.

2) The potential of characters in DnD have never been part of my opinion. They are part of a ruleset and can be proven and disproven. My opinion does not factor into this.




Okay, I'll stop derailing this thread now, I've done too much already :smallredface:

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 05:35 AM
SR? You mean, magic AC?

Regeneration isn't a problem with finger of death. Nor baleful polymorph, nor any save or suck. Guess what smart wizards use?

SR is like AC to casters, and any well played wizard has Assay Resistance.

Claiming that you're useful because you need the other characters... the other character's still don't need you. You can swing your sword, but not at flying things, nor immune/resistant things. And you can't swing as well as CoD can. Because, really, your strong points are the same as some casters. Therefore, you aren't needed.

And that's the problem with fighters, at medium/high levels. They aren't needed.

Then, they get an inferiority complex from being told that.


Fighters arn't needed? If they wern't in a party what do you think would happen the wizard with the low hit dice and low AC when the dragon hits him.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-20, 05:37 AM
Fighters arn't needed? If they wern't in a party what do you think would happen the wizard with the low hit dice and low AC when the dragon hits him.

The same thing that will happen to the fighter a few rounds later?

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-20, 05:40 AM
Fighters arn't needed? If they wern't in a party what do you think would happen the wizard with the low hit dice and low AC when the dragon hits him.

How, pray tell, does the Fighter prevent the dragon from hitting the wizard?

(I can think of quite a number of ways that the wizard keeps himself safe.)

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 05:42 AM
The same thing that will happen to the fighter a few rounds later?

Fighters usually have over 100 hit points at this level and Wizards usually have under 50 and if the fighter dies in a few rounds the wizard would die in 1/2.

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 05:43 AM
How, pray tell, does the Fighter prevent the dragon from hitting the wizard?

(I can think of quite a number of ways that the wizard keeps himself safe.)

Please explain a couple of these ways.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-20, 05:44 AM
Fighters usually have over 100 hit points at this level and Wizards usually have under 50 and if the fighter dies in a few rounds the wizard would die in 1/2.

Sure! But how does that make the fighter more useful? (see Fourth Tempter's question above)

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 05:47 AM
Sure! But how does that make the fighter more useful? (see Fourth Tempter's question above)

Meat shield (Yes I know still not very usful).

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 05:48 AM
Sure! But how does that make the fighter more useful? (see Fourth Tempter's question above)
I didn't mean to submit this one sorry.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-20, 05:49 AM
Meat shield (Yes I know still not very usful).

Well, that's the whole point. The fighter can't do much more at higher levels aside from stand somewhere and look tough. Enemies can just ignore them and go for the rest of the party. There's no real reason to pick a fighter over another class at higher levels.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-20, 05:49 AM
Please explain a couple of these ways.

A dragon's single attack is not so terrible--it will not kill a wizard outright, may not even reduce him below half his hit points. If it is a breath weapon, Resist Energy is protection, and a miss-chance spell such as Improved Invisibility or Greater Blink cuts the odds of the wizard's being struck down significantly.

Then there is the option of staying out of the wizard's reach. Moving in close for a spell followed by a quickened (via a metamagic rod, most likely) Dimension Door or Teleport to take one out of the dragon's range, or having a Phantom Steed carry one similarily far. There will be other, closer targets even if one is not out of charge range, which one can be without too much difficulty. This is the best defense, as the dragon will not be able to deliver a deadly full attack.

A wizard's defenses can be helped--Shapechanging into a Solar, for example, boosts defenses significantly; Shapechanging into a Choker allows the wizard to use his Quickness standard action to ready a dimension door or teleport in case of the dragon's approach.

Finally, the arcanist can simply disable the dragon, making it unthreatening: Arcane Reach coupled with Irresistible Dance will do so in most cases, with perhaps a rod-quickened Greater Dispel preceding it.

Edited to add: the fighter is incapable of being a meat shield. The dragon has a fly speed of a hundred and fifty or two hundred feet; it can simply avoid the Fighter without much effort on its part. The fighter can *perhaps* deliver a single attack at the end of a charge once it does so; he will take an attack of opportunity to do so, and open himself up to a devastating full attack from the dragon, which is very likely to strike him down.

"Meat shield" is simply not something fighters can do, in the sense that they have no abilities which allow them to protect their allies from enemies determined to assault those allies.

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 05:55 AM
A dragon's single attack is not so terrible--it will not kill a wizard outright, may not even reduce him below half his hit points. If it is a breath weapon, Resist Energy is protection, and a miss-chance spell such as Improved Invisibility or Greater Blink cuts the odds of the wizard's being struck down significantly.

Then there is the option of staying out of the wizard's reach. Moving in close for a spell followed by a quickened (via a metamagic rod, most likely) Dimension Door or Teleport to take one out of the dragon's range, or having a Phantom Steed carry one similarily far. There will be other, closer targets even if one is not out of charge range, which one can be without too much difficulty. This is the best defense, as the dragon will not be able to deliver a deadly full attack.

A wizard's defenses can be helped--Shapechanging into a Solar, for example, boosts defenses significantly; Shapechanging into a Choker allows the wizard to use his Quickness standard action to ready a dimension door or teleport in case of the dragon's approach.

Finally, the arcanist can simply disable the dragon, making it unthreatening: Arcane Reach coupled with Irresistible Dance will do so in most cases, with perhaps a rod-quickened Greater Dispel preceding it.

I note that you have studiously avoided the question of how the FIghter protects the spellcaster.

Makes sence but what about all of the dragons spells? And yes I am haveing difficulty in figureing out a good reason why the fighter actually protects the wizard at these levels.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-20, 05:58 AM
What about all of the dragon's spells? A dragon is bound to have a lower caster level than the wizard--generally, quite significantly. If it has protections such as Spell Turning up, the wizard can identify them (with Greater Arcane Sight, say) and dispel them without much trouble. Offensively, the dragon's spellcasting is unlikely to be able to trouble the wizard very much.

If the dragons hould happen to be able to cast, oh, say, Antilife Shell, however, it can simply ignore the Fighter (as though it could not do so already!).

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 06:03 AM
What about all of the dragon's spells? A dragon is bound to have a lower caster level than the wizard--generally, quite significantly. If it has protections such as Spell Turning up, the wizard can identify them (with Greater Arcane Sight, say) and dispel them without much trouble. Offensively, the dragon's spellcasting is unlikely to be able to trouble the wizard very much.

If the dragons hould happen to be able to cast, oh, say, Antilife Shell, however, it can simply ignore the Fighter (as though it could not do so already!).

True True, but as you said the dragon has very fast fly movement couldn't it in theory melee attack the wizard or grapple said wizard so he can't do spells which require hand movements.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-20, 06:06 AM
True True, but as you said the dragon has very fast fly movement couldn't it in theory melee attack the wizard or grapple said wizard so he can't do spells which require hand movements.

Could be possible, could be countered. Either way, the Fighter can't help (A dragon grappling a wizard is going to happen somewhere really high up or far from their starting point I imagine)

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 06:08 AM
Could be possible, could be countered. Either way, the Fighter can't help (A dragon grappling a wizard is going to happen somewhere really high up or far from their starting point I imagine)

Could you give me an example of a counter.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-20, 06:08 AM
It could attack the wizard in melee--as I mentioned, even if the melee attack gets past the miss chance a smart wizard is likely to have from a spell, a single attack is not lethal; it is a full attack which kills.

As for grappling--yes, grappling is a threat. A Ring of Freedom of Movement, for that reason, is a very wise investment as soon as it is affordable: it negates grappling entirely. Alternatively, the cleric could place such a spell on the wizard (and everyone else he can spare the spell slots for). A wizard who does not have such an item should have some method of dealing with being grappled ready--for example, Dimension Door and Teleport have only verbal components. The wizard can negate his weakness.

Another counter is assaulting the dragon via quickened spells with readied actions to Dimension Door or Teleport away, assaulting the dragon and moving out of range (for example, via Phantom Steed), and readying spells that will both prevent the dragon from reaching the wizard and do something unpleasant to it at the same time (Solid Fog and Prismatic Wall are solid choices).

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 06:14 AM
It could attack the wizard in melee--as I mentioned, even if the melee attack gets past the miss chance a smart wizard is likely to have from a spell, a single attack is not lethal; it is a full attack which kills.

As for grappling--yes, grappling is a threat. A Ring of Freedom of Movement, for that reason, is a very wise investment as soon as it is affordable: it negates grappling entirely. Alternatively, the cleric could place such a spell on the wizard (and everyone else he can spare the spell slots for). A wizard who does not have such an item should have some method of dealing with being grappled ready--for example, Dimension Door and Teleport have only verbal components. The wizard can negate his weakness.

Another counter is assaulting the dragon via quickened spells with readied actions to Dimension Door or Teleport away, assaulting the dragon and moving out of range (for example, via Phantom Steed), and readying spells that will both prevent the dragon from reaching the wizard and do something unpleasant to it at the same time (Solid Fog and Prismatic Wall are solid choices).

I see I didn't know about that item, but what about frightful presence?

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-20, 06:16 AM
What about it? Immunity to fear effects is not so difficult to acquire. Mind Blank is protection enough, although the party is better served if the cleric conjures a Heroes' Feast every morning, rendering them all immune to fear effects.

Even if Frightful Presence was a danger, the wizard (with his good will saves) is better prepared to deal with it than anyone save the cleric or druid.

Jack Mann
2007-05-20, 06:19 AM
I think the real point here is this: If the wizard is at low HP and low AC for some strange reason, what does that have to do with anything? How does the fighter become more relevant at all? There's nothing the fighter can do to stop the dragon, or virtually any other high level monster. He can't make the monster fight him, and there's damned little he can do to keep the monster from attacking his party members. He can kill the monster, but he can't do that as well as his fellow party members can. Even when it comes down to straight combat, the cleric and druid can do that better than he can.

The fact that the wizard doesn't really need much protection doesn't really matter. Even if he couldn't, the fighter would be just as useless.

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 06:21 AM
What about it? Immunity to fear effects is not so difficult to acquire. Mind Blank is protection enough, although the party is better served if the cleric conjures a Heroes' Feast every morning, rendering them all immune to fear effects.

Even if Frightful Presence was a danger, the wizard (with his good will saves) is better prepared to deal with it than anyone save the cleric or druid.

Alright we have established that the wizard would most likely win in such encounters and the fighter would not, but do you have any ideas in how the fighter could be buffed up to be of importants.

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 06:28 AM
Do any of you have a anti wizard idea or example for a monster?

Dhavaer
2007-05-20, 06:35 AM
Do any of you have a anti wizard idea or example for a monster?

A higher level wizard.

Starsinger
2007-05-20, 06:35 AM
I think the real point here is this: If the wizard is at low HP and low AC for some strange reason, what does that have to do with anything? How does the fighter become more relevant at all? There's nothing the fighter can do ...

Force the Fighter to constantly protect the wizard via a pair of Rings of Friend Shield? Might as well put those HP to use, since he doesn't use them tanking.

Vulgosh
2007-05-20, 06:36 AM
A higher level wizard.

That works.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-20, 07:35 AM
Alright we have established that the wizard would most likely win in such encounters and the fighter would not, but do you have any ideas in how the fighter could be buffed up to be of importants.

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692) is one of the better attempts that I have seen, although it does have its problems (Willful Resistance is the most glaring; the author of the fix has made a post to the effect of it requiring alteration).

From that thread:


To be an actual fix, it will need to actually address the fighter's problems. Those problems are NOT "not enough feats", and extra feats won't let them fix the problems:
-Crappy mobility that can't get him to any enemies that don't "stand and deliver."
-A dozen and one weaknesses, from the will save to having no way to defend against magic or monster special attacks.
-No unique abilities besides Weapon Spec->Supremacy, which he has to actually spend his feats on and which doesn't help him with any of his problems.
-No capstone ability.
-No reason to take the class to 20.
-Half the levels are dead levels.
-Class abilities do NOT scale with level at all, much less well.

To address the weaknesses of the Fighter, rather than of the Fighter's design--mobility is the most glaring. As we saw from the discussion about the Dragon, the wizard can teleport, and with metamagic rods, cast a spell in the same round. In addition, he can conjure a Phantom Steed for mobility, fly under his own power (via Fly or Overland Flight--or Shapechange), and in addition to all that, he can almost always move and remain at full effectiveness. Furthermore (and the Tome of Battle changes this for warriors) where wizards can move and use a standard action to be very effective, a fighter is not being truly effective unless he is making a full attack, which is a full-round action.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-05-20, 08:21 AM
Getting a bit off-topic, but I had to join in -

A dragon will generally not even know that there is a wizard until it's too late. Why? Loads of reasons -

Scry'n'die. The Celerity-Time Stop-Forcecage-Cloudkill gambit. Most of Complete Arcane (I'm looking at you, IOTSV).

On topic-
Broken stuff (excluding Sarrukhs and similar):

Nightsticks (Libris Mortis)
Persistent Spell (Faerun campaign setting, although I know it's been updated; even WotC realised that +4lvl was too little)
Spontaneous Divination (Complete Champion)
Metamagic Spell Trigger (Artificer)
Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion (PHB)
Old style Arcane Genesis (ELH)
The Epic Spellcasting system (ELH)
Candles of Invocation (DMG)
Dweomerkeeper (CD webenh.)
Planar Shepherd (MoE)

The only thing that remotely rivals the power of that stuff from ToB is Iron Heart Surge; while its fairly sloppy wording and lack of limiting features allow you to do much more with it than the Designer's anticipated (10th level PCs negating multiplanar divine effects with move actions?), it's powerful, flavourful, and a welcome boost.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-05-20, 02:50 PM
Alright, we have established that the wizard would most likely win in such encounters and the fighter would not, but do you have any ideas in how the fighter could be buffed up to be of importance?

Scratch out "fighter" and replace it with "warblade," "crusader," or "swordsage."

Bear's fix works well too.

Morty
2007-05-20, 03:02 PM
Scratch out "fighter" and replace it with "warblade," "crusader," or "swordsage."

Bear's fix works well too.

Actually, Warblade isn't very good fighter replacement, you're better off using fixes like BWL's one if you're finding fighter too weak to use.
Fax's "How-it-should-be" figher is nice, but it'd cause problems for someone trying to make lone warrior.

Corncracker
2007-05-20, 03:13 PM
I personally Like the "How-It-Shoul-Be" class's for a fighter fix.

Tormsskull
2007-05-21, 06:58 AM
To everyone saying "But how does the fighter reach the flying _____"? Well, look at the WBL guidelines. At what level will a group typically be fighting dragons? 8th level? 10th? Pretty easy to afford a magic item that grants flight by then.

D&D is very magic-dependant. Outfit a fighter in all of the gear a fighter of his level is guessed to have (WBL) and I think he will be useful in nearly all encounters when faced with CR-appropriate challenges.

Dausuul
2007-05-21, 07:32 AM
To everyone saying "But how does the fighter reach the flying _____"? Well, look at the WBL guidelines. At what level will a group typically be fighting dragons? 8th level? 10th? Pretty easy to afford a magic item that grants flight by then.

Sure--flight at a speed of 60, tops. The dragon's speed is at least 150, probably 200, and might even be 250.

Being a ranged attacker, the wizard can deal with that quite handily. The melee fighter... not so much.


A dragon will generally not even know that there is a wizard until it's too late. Why? Loads of reasons -

Scry'n'die. The Celerity-Time Stop-Forcecage-Cloudkill gambit. Most of Complete Arcane (I'm looking at you, IOTSV).

Forcecage-Cloudkill doesn't work on dragons--or, rather, the dragons it does work on aren't worth fighting at the level you have to be to pull off the combo. You have to use the barred version on any dragon bigger than Large size, and then the Cloudkill drifts off target.

Generally, yeah, a wizard can pull off various combos to destroy the dragon in one or two rounds... though there are some nasty counters. The most entertaining counter is the dragon with the ability to cast anti-magic field, preferably quickened and/or contingencied.

DM: "The dragon flies up to you and grapples you."
Wizard: "No, he doesn't. I have permanent freedom of movement."
DM, grinning evilly: "Not any more, you don't. You get an attack of opportunity, though. Wanna see if you can roll a natural 20?"

(Yeah, the dragon could bypass the AoO by getting Improved Grapple, but it's more fun to give the wizard that one last forlorn hope.)

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-21, 07:50 AM
Being a ranged attacker, the wizard can deal with that quite handily. The melee fighter... not so much.
Melee fighter? There's the problem. If the fighter's so foolish he doesn't take advantage of his proficiency in the longbow, he deserves that kind of crap.

The only classes that have any excuse to not carry a ranged weapon for such encounters are martial adepts, who have no proficiency in ranged weapons at all.


(Yeah, the dragon could bypass the AoO by getting Improved Grapple, but it's more fun to give the wizard that one last forlorn hope.)
Well, it's the initial touch attack that provokes the AoO. Since a dragon can use its reach on that particular part of the grapple, I don't think it even needs the feat to negate the AoO.

Mr. Moogle
2007-05-21, 08:04 AM
About the monk: Yeah, at -4 to hit. Ok... You can't even TOUCH another PC at that point. And hardly most mooks even. Take, for example, a naked, average, kobold. AC 13. You need a 17 to hit. And only on a full attack. And it does 1d6+ str mod.

Naked gives you minus 2 ac and i was frankly surprised at all the hate for monks, it's called permanent maic weapon +5. Learn it, Live it, Love it.

Dhavaer
2007-05-21, 08:13 AM
Naked gives you minus 2 ac

Where is this from?

Indon
2007-05-21, 08:14 AM
Melee fighter? There's the problem. If the fighter's so foolish he doesn't take advantage of his proficiency in the longbow, he deserves that kind of crap.

The only classes that have any excuse to not carry a ranged weapon for such encounters are martial adepts, who have no proficiency in ranged weapons at all.


Agreed. A 'Melee fighter' who never uses a bow is like an 'Evocation Wizard' who never casts anything but Fireball. Feel free to restrict your tool use based on your character concept, but don't complain about the class being underpowered just because your concept specifically decreases its' power.

Now, maybe if one could demonstrate that most melee warriors don't have the foresight to have a backup weapon or three, that would be a point in and of itself.

Also, Bane bows for problematic types are cheap and effective. You could even shell out a large initial capital for Arrows of Dragon Slaying and go hunt some dragons. Most dragon hoards can recoup the cost of quite a few of those arrows.

Dausuul
2007-05-21, 08:49 AM
Naked gives you minus 2 ac and i was frankly surprised at all the hate for monks, it's called permanent maic weapon +5. Learn it, Live it, Love it.

...which still doesn't do any damage and still can't hit anything.


Melee fighter? There's the problem. If the fighter's so foolish he doesn't take advantage of his proficiency in the longbow, he deserves that kind of crap.

Okay, I will concede this point... but the fighter is presumably built for melee, not ranged combat, so his skill with the bow is not all that hot. The bow probably has a lower enhancement bonus, the fighter is using Dex 12 or 14 instead of Strength 26 for his attack bonus, no Power Attack, et cetera.


The only classes that have any excuse to not carry a ranged weapon for such encounters are martial adepts, who have no proficiency in ranged weapons at all.

There's a reason my warblade is a wood elf, and the Strength bonus is only part of it. :)

Indon
2007-05-21, 10:07 AM
...which still doesn't do any damage and still can't hit anything.


Now, now. Monks have their ways of attaining impressive capabilities. Yes, a monk can't TWF/Flurry very effectively at level 1, but it becomes more respectable later on.

IMO, the best way for monks to gain damage is to somehow obtain a Pounce capability (make a full attack on a charge), and to gain size category upgrades on their attacks (Polymorph, Greater Mighty Wallop, etc). Before long your Monk can be dealing 1zillionD8 (The size upgrade chart basically ends at Xd8) damage in melee in a round, matching the party rogue (slightly less damage against any target) and being all around more survivable to boot.

There are other ways to generally optimize monks so they can gain nifty capabilities.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-21, 10:32 AM
Aye, get an 11'th level half giant monk with a monk's belt, superior unarmed strike, improved natural attack (fist), and someone to use a scroll of Giant Size on you.

Voila. Size is treated as colossal++ for damage, or 24d8. Normally treated as giant, for 6d8.

:smallbiggrin:

Then get a friendly druid/artificer/archivist to make a scroll of CL 20 Greater Magic Fang, and have a wizard permanency it (preferably a hired one: at 8500 gp or so, hard to find, but pretty cheap).

Vulgosh
2007-05-21, 10:45 AM
Aye, get an 11'th level half giant monk with a monk's belt, superior unarmed strike, improved natural attack (fist), and someone to use a scroll of Giant Size on you.

Voila. Size is treated as colossal++ for damage, or 24d8. Normally treated as giant, for 6d8.

:smallbiggrin:

Then get a friendly druid/artificer/archivist to make a scroll of CL 20 Greater Magic Fang, and have a wizard permanency it (preferably a hired one: at 8500 gp or so, hard to find, but pretty cheap).

What about for level one, how much size damage could you do at that level?

Indon
2007-05-21, 10:49 AM
What about for level one, how much size damage could you do at that level?

Hmm. Level 1 monk, spend your feat on Superior Unarmed Strike (so you deal damage like a level 5 monk, so I think 1d8) and then... Enlarge Person? I think 2d6, if Enlarge Person is a level 1 spell.

Vulgosh
2007-05-21, 10:51 AM
Hmm. Level 1 monk, spend your feat on Superior Unarmed Strike (so you deal damage like a level 5 monk, so I think 1d8) and then... Enlarge Person? I think 2d6, if Enlarge Person is a level 1 spell.

It is, but you could also du shileile (if I spelled it right) a level one druid spell which makes target's weapon do one size chategory higher.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-21, 10:54 AM
Shelliagh (sp?) only applies to nonmagical clubs and quarterstaffs. It's 2 sizes higher.

Now, if natural attacks were treated as unarmed attacks, and I got a club grafted to my arm (as the illithid weapon graft, FF), and it was treated as unarmed... well, 48d8 is just stupid.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-21, 10:56 AM
As for Scry'n'Die, I have seven words: amulet of proof against detection and location. A steal at only 35,000 at it's minimum level.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-21, 11:03 AM
While useful, it is entirely bypassed by discern location, as well as being useless at very high levels (wizard says: Arcane mastery, borked feat. Or just have high CL).

On the other hand, a custom version with a higher CL might stay worthwhile vs scrying and a few other things for a while.

EDIT: Ah. Remember that a CL 16 version, while requiring a DC 27 CL check, would be... huh, nondetection has nonstandard pricing. I'd guess something like 65K, which is actually a pretty good deal.

And discern location doesn't function unless you've met the person. Hmm. Legend lore might work, but the casting time is annoying, and you's pass over a dragon you didn't notice.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-21, 11:06 AM
While useful, it is entirely bypassed by discern location, as well as being useless at very high levels (wizard says: Arcane mastery, borked feat. Or just have high CL).

On the other hand, a custom version with a higher CL might stay worthwhile vs scrying and a few other things for a while.

'xactly my point.

Vulgosh
2007-05-21, 12:46 PM
Shelliagh (sp?) only applies to nonmagical clubs and quarterstaffs. It's 2 sizes higher.

Now, if natural attacks were treated as unarmed attacks, and I got a club grafted to my arm (as the illithid weapon graft, FF), and it was treated as unarmed... well, 48d8 is just stupid.

So with a quaterstaff, shelliagh, playing a golaith, and enlarge person you get I think gargantuant.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-21, 12:49 PM
Nope, colossal. But it's still only 4d6.

lord_khaine
2007-05-21, 01:27 PM
for that matter improved natural attack requires 4 or something in bab.

Vulgosh
2007-05-21, 02:48 PM
Nope, colossal. But it's still only 4d6.

But thats still awsome for a level two group.

Dark Tira
2007-05-21, 04:18 PM
So with a quaterstaff, shelliagh, playing a golaith, and enlarge person you get I think gargantuant.


Unfortunately, as goliaths are monstrous humanoids they can't be affected by enlarge person.

Vulgosh
2007-05-21, 04:44 PM
Unfortunately, as goliaths are monstrous humanoids they can't be affected by enlarge person.

Ok then it goes back down to gargantuant.

Talya
2007-05-21, 05:13 PM
Naked gives you minus 2 ac

Err, what?


and i was frankly surprised at all the hate for monks, it's called permanent maic weapon +5. Learn it, Live it, Love it.

That'd be cool, if it were true.

Monks get no enhancement bonuses on their fists, one of the main problems with monks. They need to be able to get their fists/feet up to the +10 total (+5 enhancement, +5 in other abilities) just like a weapon-user. No, "They can use weapons, too!" is not a suitable response, one of their attractive class features is the 2d10 damage per hit...which would be a lot more attractive if they had a reason to use it.

Dausuul
2007-05-21, 05:13 PM
So with a quaterstaff, shelliagh, playing a golaith, and enlarge person you get I think gargantuant.

So, what you're saying is that a fighter (with higher BAB, and the same number of attacks if he picks up Two-Weapon Fighting) could do this better?

Gee, those monks. So powerful.

Edit: In fact, only a druid can actually use a shillelagh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm). The effect doesn't apply unless the weapon is wielded by the caster. Congratulations, you've found a way to make druids super-scary in melee at low levels! They were such wusses before!

*gets a mop to clean up excess sarcasm*

Dhavaer
2007-05-21, 05:14 PM
Hmm. Level 1 monk, spend your feat on Superior Unarmed Strike (so you deal damage like a level 5 monk, so I think 1d8) and then... Enlarge Person? I think 2d6, if Enlarge Person is a level 1 spell.

Superior Unarmed Strike requires +3 BAB.

Vulgosh
2007-05-21, 05:17 PM
So, what you're saying is that a fighter (with higher BAB, and the same number of attacks if he picks up Two-Weapon Fighting) could do this better?

Gee, those monks. So powerful.

No, I was just saying Goliath because they can swing a large weapon.

Sutremaine
2007-05-21, 05:32 PM
In fact, only a druid can actually use a shillelagh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm). The effect doesn't apply unless the weapon is wielded by the caster.

From the Potions And Oils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm) section of the SRD:

The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target.

Dausuul
2007-05-21, 05:39 PM
From the Potions And Oils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm) section of the SRD:

Ahh, so now you have to burn a magic item every fight?

Talya
2007-05-21, 05:57 PM
Ahh, so now you have to burn a magic item every fight?

At least it's a very cheap item.

Color me unimpressed though...a 3d6 quarterstaff, big deal.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-21, 07:15 PM
Okay, I will concede this point... but the fighter is presumably built for melee, not ranged combat, so his skill with the bow is not all that hot. The bow probably has a lower enhancement bonus, the fighter is using Dex 12 or 14 instead of Strength 26 for his attack bonus, no Power Attack, et cetera.
Better than nothing.

To tell the truth, the part that would get on my nerves while playing is that the dragon is may be fast enough to regularly be over one range increment away—even for a longbow. So that's just another -2 every other round or so just because.

Of course, regarding casters as ranged combatants—that same speed has the potential to strip wizards of tactical options by denying them the use of their Close and Medium range spells. Sure, there are a lot of good Long range spells, but it's always good to have options.

Helgraf
2007-05-22, 01:34 AM
All of these 'problems' of balance can be solved by the DM.

I never got why people argue about how so-and-so wizard with eighteen different PrCs can utterly own this fighter or this paladin.

I dunno who sort of campaigns y'all run, but in ours we're usually fighting inhuman beasts, not each other.

As for some classes being weaker or stronger, I don't see that as a problem either. My regular character is a friggen abjurer3/master abjurer5 with Evocation and Necromancy as his forbidden schools. I do squat damage, especially compared to the Exhalted druid with Vow of Poverty and a dire tiger wildshape, but thats okay, because we have fun playing together.

If it bothers you so much, play a game where no splat-books or allowed. And hell, if spellcasters bother you so much, play a game where they aren't allowed (its actually pretty fun)

And when the DM is splattering you by throwing optimized spellcasters at you? Then what do you do?

Helgraf
2007-05-22, 01:49 AM
At the point of fighting a CR5 oppenent you will probably be able to buy or have already found a weapon that deals fire damage so you can kill a troll, and for the Marut have the cleric cast align weapon on the fighter's sword, and if you ever get up to fighting a Balor all of your fighter typs will probably have over 150 hit points, but for any of these said encounters you will probably have at least one Arcane and divine spell casters on your team to assist you in all of these because one of the points of DnD is to work as a team to exploit each of the party members strong points and gaurd their weak points.

Problem, of course, is it's easier just to skip the fighter, have a second cleric on the team, who can buff themselves and do all this. Hell, with the right spell selections, a cleric, a druid, a wizard and a bard (with one level in theif) can steamroll any scenario that might "call for a fighter".

Helgraf
2007-05-22, 01:53 AM
Fighters arn't needed? If they wern't in a party what do you think would happen the wizard with the low hit dice and low AC when the dragon hits him.

Well, firstly, without fighters, you can start the combat from significantly farther away. Buff up from far away enough that the dragon can't make the Listen checks to hear the spellcasting.

Once you're properly buffed, the dragon's attacks will quickly become irrelevant - because you're about to debuff him so hard and so fast that he'll be lucky to get one round of action before he's at 0 Dex or otherwise incapped.

belboz
2007-05-22, 02:29 AM
And when the DM is splattering you by throwing optimized spellcasters at you? Then what do you do?

Although I'm not a big fan of the "players should just pull their punches and not make optimized builds" line, I think "DMs should [if needed] just pull their punches and not make optimized builds." If you don't allow PC wizards, you can make your own rules for NPC wizards. If your NPC wizards are splatting the PCs, take them down a notch.

Vulgosh
2007-05-22, 10:36 AM
Well, firstly, without fighters, you can start the combat from significantly farther away. Buff up from far away enough that the dragon can't make the Listen checks to hear the spellcasting.

Once you're properly buffed, the dragon's attacks will quickly become irrelevant - because you're about to debuff him so hard and so fast that he'll be lucky to get one round of action before he's at 0 Dex or otherwise incapped.

Couldn't you start from far away with a fighter any ways.

Vulgosh
2007-05-22, 10:46 AM
Problem, of course, is it's easier just to skip the fighter, have a second cleric on the team, who can buff themselves and do all this. Hell, with the right spell selections, a cleric, a druid, a wizard and a bard (with one level in theif) can steamroll any scenario that might "call for a fighter".

Why wouldn't the cleric buff up the fighter for these encounters.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-22, 11:04 AM
Why wouldn't the cleric buff up the fighter for these encounters.
Mostly because the most potent cleric buffs have a personal only range.

Vulgosh
2007-05-22, 11:47 AM
Mostly because the most potent cleric buffs have a personal only range.

Oh bummer.

Yahzi
2007-05-22, 12:06 PM
How can he take three weapon fighting? What *is* three weapon fighting?
I... I don't want to know.

:smallbiggrin:

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-22, 12:38 PM
Oh bummer.
Yeah. Now and then you see a class balance discussion bring up making more cleric buffs touch or better range. This would allow the buff the fighter strategy.

Of course divine power would remain at least partially useless on a fighter, since you'd gain little bonus from the BAB increase.


How can he take three weapon fighting? What *is* three weapon fighting?
I suppose the intended feat is Multiweapon Fighting.

Vulgosh
2007-05-22, 12:42 PM
Yeah. Now and then you see a class balance discussion bring up making more cleric buffs touch or better range. This would allow the buff the fighter strategy.

Of course divine power would remain at least partially useless on a fighter, since you'd gain little bonus from the BAB increase.


I suppose the intended feat is Multiweapon Fighting.

Yeah now that I think about it most of my buffing clerics did little fighter buffing, but the three weapon fighting thing was a mistake I ment to say two weapon fighting but I was talking about haveing a monk take it so he would get three attacks.

TheOtherMC
2007-05-22, 12:57 PM
Alright we have established that the wizard would most likely win in such encounters and the fighter would not, but do you have any ideas in how the fighter could be buffed up to be of importants.

Easy be a Knight instead :P

Vulgosh
2007-05-22, 02:50 PM
Easy be a Knight instead :P

I personally think that knights are too restricting.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-22, 03:18 PM
Easy be a Knight instead :P

Ugh. If there ever was One class that screamed "MMORPG!!!" in DnD, the Knight would be it.

TheOtherMC
2007-05-22, 03:26 PM
Ugh. If there ever was One class that screamed "MMORPG!!!" in DnD, the Knight would be it.

Maybe...but you can deny the power of its class features. If you just replace all those aforementioned instances of fighters vs dragon with knight vs dragon noone could argue. Knight's Challenge is specificaly designed for pretty much "keep the dragon away from the spellcaster"

As for being too restricting, ok so you can gain benefits from flanking big whoop, you can still flank.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-22, 03:29 PM
Maybe...but you can deny the power of its class features. If you just replace all those aforementioned instances of fighters vs dragon with knight vs dragon noone could argue. Knight's Challenge is specificaly designed for pretty much "keep the dragon away from the spellcaster"

Oh, I'm not denying it's power. It's just what it does: It's class abilities are Made for MMORPG's. They could've named Knight's Challenge "Draw Aggro" instead and be 100% correct about it's use. It's not a roleplaying class to me, it's a hack-and-slash class.



As for being too restricting, ok so you can gain benefits from flanking big whoop, you can still flank.

I think he means the Knight's Code.

TheOtherMC
2007-05-22, 04:15 PM
Oh, I'm not denying it's power. It's just what it does: It's class abilities are Made for MMORPG's. They could've named Knight's Challenge "Draw Aggro" instead and be 100% correct about it's use. It's not a roleplaying class to me, it's a hack-and-slash class.




I think he means the Knight's Code.

So do I, its not that bad actually. All it says is that you can't attack a flatfooted or helpless opponent with intent to kill and you can't benefit from flanking. Besides, if you do violate it you just lose 1 Knight's Challenge use for the day. (and if you run out -2 on most rolls....ok that one is kinda sucky) If you really need to hit something just "swallow your pride" and take the challenge hit.

How are they not a roleplaying class? I (Lawful-Evil Human Knight) pretty much only seriously fight or activly seek out opponents that could give me glory, im completly appathetic to anything beneath me. When I do find such a challenge I go at it one on one and have even been known to threaten violence on party members who try to interfere....FUN FOR ALL!

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-22, 04:28 PM
Oh, I'm not denying it's power. It's just what it does: It's class abilities are Made for MMORPG's. They could've named Knight's Challenge "Draw Aggro" instead and be 100% correct about it's use. It's not a roleplaying class to me, it's a hack-and-slash class.


And that makes the Fighter, who has no abilities or skills that are useful outside of combat... what, precisely?

The class is a set of abilities. One of these abilities happens to be reminiscent of MMORPGs, but that has nothing to do with how you roleplay a character who has Knight levels.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-22, 04:33 PM
How are they not a roleplaying class? I (Lawful-Evil Human Knight) pretty much only seriously fight or activly seek out opponents that could give me glory, im completly appathetic to anything beneath me. When I do find such a challenge I go at it one on one and have even been known to threaten violence on party members who try to interfere....FUN FOR ALL!

Thing is, if I want to roleplay that, I want to actually Roleplay that. With the Knight, I hardly have to work at roleplaying it, the rules are doing it for me.

"Make a speach to goad my enemy into attacking me? Who cares, my class ability does that anyways!"




And that makes the Fighter, who has no abilities or skills that are useful outside of combat... what, precisely?

Completely useless ofcourse, but we already knew that. Besides, what fighter? :smallconfused: I was talking about the Knight.

Counterspin
2007-05-22, 05:56 PM
Why should people be denied good mechanics because you're worried that you'll get lazy and skip your pre combat taunting?

TheOtherMC
2007-05-22, 06:11 PM
Oh i do not skimp on the taunting. I enjoy the taunting. The class features just give me a legitimate excuse to do it regularly! :P

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-22, 07:18 PM
Thing is, if I want to roleplay that, I want to actually Roleplay that. With the Knight, I hardly have to work at roleplaying it, the rules are doing it for me.
OMG! The rules actually support the role-playing?! :smallamused:

Believe it or not, the concepts can intertwine.

Jack Mann
2007-05-22, 07:27 PM
That's like saying you can't roleplay a wizard, since the game casts the spells for you, meaning you can't roleplay the spellcasting.

Nothing stops you from roleplaying it and then using the mechanical effect! That's how the game is generally supposed to work! You roleplay the swing of your sword, as well as rolling the dice. You don't have to choose one or the other.

Vulgosh
2007-05-23, 10:34 AM
Maybe...but you can deny the power of its class features. If you just replace all those aforementioned instances of fighters vs dragon with knight vs dragon noone could argue. Knight's Challenge is specificaly designed for pretty much "keep the dragon away from the spellcaster"

As for being too restricting, ok so you can gain benefits from flanking big whoop, you can still flank.

I ment to restricting for the role playing.

Tormsskull
2007-05-23, 10:41 AM
Thing is, if I want to roleplay that, I want to actually Roleplay that. With the Knight, I hardly have to work at roleplaying it, the rules are doing it for me.

"Make a speach to goad my enemy into attacking me? Who cares, my class ability does that anyways!"


I know what you mean. I actually looked at it from a different perspective though. When I first heard about this class (I play core only), I immediately thought WOW. And aggro management applied to D&D gives me a knee-jerk reaction.

That aside, if a player that is not a Knight tries to do a taunt I think the DM would be under pressure to make it not work since the Knight has a specific class ability that allows him to do it. If other players could to it too it would seem to weaken the Knight's ability. If other players have no chance of succeeding on a roleplaying taunt it would seem to limit roleplaying.

Vulgosh
2007-05-23, 05:32 PM
Personally I disliked most of the class varients/ new classes from the players hand book II.

Jack Mann
2007-05-23, 05:43 PM
That aside, if a player that is not a Knight tries to do a taunt I think the DM would be under pressure to make it not work since the Knight has a specific class ability that allows him to do it. If other players could to it too it would seem to weaken the Knight's ability. If other players have no chance of succeeding on a roleplaying taunt it would seem to limit roleplaying.

Just like how a character without diplomacy can never positively influence the attitudes of NPCs, no matter how well they roleplay?

Tormsskull
2007-05-23, 09:31 PM
Just like how a character without diplomacy can never positively influence the attitudes of NPCs, no matter how well they roleplay?

I don't know about diplomacy, I've yet to find a single DM that uses it as printed.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-23, 09:47 PM
On topic: Complete champion. They have a spell that can be expended for an AUTO natural 20. Not maximise roll. AUTO NATURAL 20!

Vorpal weapons?

Yeah.

And the wizard sub level trick.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-24, 07:30 AM
Just like how a character without diplomacy can never positively influence the attitudes of NPCs, no matter how well they roleplay?
Well, they should certainly be making a Diplomacy check if they're actually trying to change the attitude. It is useable untrained, so whether or not they have any ranks is not an issue. So the diplomacy rules works exactly the same no matter who's using them.

Now with the knight's challenge it comes down to the fact that the knight is the only class that is good enough to provoke anyone with a challenge. Sure, my fighter can try to challenge the BBEG to a one on one duel, but it's only gonna work if the BBEG is the type to accept duels. There is no save on the part of the BBEG. Nothing happens mechanically. It's all up to the DM to decide if the BBEG is likely to accept. However, a knight, issuing a knight's challenge can make a challenge in such a way that the BBEG feels almost compelled to accept, even if he does not care about honor and would normally never risk his plans on a silly duel.

So, yeah, anyone can issue a challenge, but, unlike the Diplomacy rules, the extent to which hard rules are involved differs from character to character, and technique to technique (sometimes even a knight has to issue a challenge without aid of his challenge rules...).

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-24, 10:37 AM
However, a knight, issuing a knight's challenge can make a challenge in such a way that the BBEG feels almost compelled to accept, even if he does not care about honor and would normally never risk his plans on a silly duel.

And here's why I hate it. It's a make-the-enemy-stupid-beyond-reason ability. It's a comedy ability. It's something you find in Austin Powers, not in James Bond.

And the reason I brought up roleplaying is not that it can't be roleplayed, it's because it doesn't matter whether you roleplay it or not. With diplomacy, your DM can give you bonusses or penalties depending on how well you roleplay. With the Knight, there's now suddenly a class-feature that Circumvents all the stats and skills you normally use to help your roleplaying and just makes it a save. You succeed or you don't, but your roleplaying is not going to matter for the outcome.

I detest the Knight class.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-24, 11:18 AM
And here's why I hate it. It's a make-the-enemy-stupid-beyond-reason ability. It's a comedy ability. It's something you find in Austin Powers, not in James Bond.
Hardly. The whole idea is that the knight simply knows how to manipulate his foes. The enemy may be compelled to respond to the challenge, but it doesn't make him or her abandon all senses. Enemies affected by the knight's challenge can use whatever tactics they would normally be disposed to use, all that really happens is he convinced them that it is worth their while to attack him rather than your allies.

If you want to see non-comedic uses of the concept, you need to watch more westerns and samurai films.

(Yeah, I realized my previous post may have been somewhat inaccurate in descriptions. I'm not sufficiently well-versed in the Knight's Challenge ability and am only know double checking the wording.)


And the reason I brought up roleplaying is not that it can't be roleplayed, it's because it doesn't matter whether you roleplay it or not. With diplomacy, your DM can give you bonusses or penalties depending on how well you roleplay. With the Knight, there's now suddenly a class-feature that Circumvents all the stats and skills you normally use to help your roleplaying and just makes it a save. You succeed or you don't, but your roleplaying is not going to matter for the outcome.
...

I'm thinking we have very different ideas as to what constitutes "role-playing."

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-24, 11:24 AM
Hardly. The whole idea is that the knight simply knows how to manipulate his foes. The enemy may be compelled to respond to the challenge, but it doesn't make him or her abandon all senses. Enemies affected by the knight's challenge can use whatever tactics they would normally be disposed to use, all that really happens is he convinced them that it is worth their while to attack him rather than your allies.

If you want to see non-comedic uses of the concept, you need to watch more westerns and samurai films.

(Yeah, I realized my previous post may have been somewhat inaccurate in descriptions. I'm not sufficiently well-versed in the Knight's Challenge ability and am only know double checking the wording.)

Take a moment to think about what the ability does, rather then what it is flavoured to do. Enemies being That stupid all of a sudden belong in comedies. That bad movies have done the same doesn't excuse it.




I'm thinking we have very different ideas as to what constitutes "role-playing."

I doubt it. I may however, have a different idea as to what roleplaying ought to do. For me, roleplaying should further the game, influence the game. Roleplaying shouldn't just be flavour to justify what your rolls or the mechanics just did.

The only things I feel are exempt from this are combat and magic, because those are things we can't do around the table.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-24, 11:30 AM
Take a moment to think about what the ability does, rather then what it is flavoured to do. Enemies being That stupid all of a sudden belong in comedies. That bad movies have done the same doesn't excuse it.

The ability coerces the target that you are more dangerous than their normally intended target. That's a legitimate combat maneuver, called a "feint", used even today in warfare. I fail to see how it's comedic at all.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-24, 11:35 AM
The ability coerces the target that you are more dangerous than their normally intended target. That's a legitimate combat maneuver, called a "feint", used even today in warfare. I fail to see how it's comedic at all.

*headdesk*

Ugh. Firstly, read up on the definitions of a feint. Secondly, you didn't pay attention to the first sentence of that piece of post of mines you quoted.

What the ability Does, is make your enemies stupid. Nomatter who they are, where you are, what the situation is, what circumstances are, or what you say in character. They instantly become the equivalent of Doctor Evil.

Tormsskull
2007-05-24, 11:38 AM
Take a moment to think about what the ability does, rather then what it is flavoured to do. Enemies being That stupid all of a sudden belong in comedies. That bad movies have done the same doesn't excuse it.


I agree with you. With my limited knowledge of the ability (I refuse to buy the PHBII), it is completely absurd.



I doubt it.


I wouldn't. I used to be shocked at what constituted roleplaying to different groups, but it really doesn't faze me anymore because I have seen such different gradations.

The interesting thing to me about roleplaying is that nearly everyone agrees it is important, but to different degrees. A lot of people shy away from calling their game hack n slash (or kick-in-the-door) because they think people will take their game less serious (I'm only guessing here). So instead of striving to roleplay they make a really lame attempt at it and then call it roleplaying.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-24, 11:48 AM
*headdesk*

Ugh. Firstly, read up on the definitions of a feint. Secondly, you didn't pay attention to the first sentence of that piece of post of mines you quoted.

What the ability Does, is make your enemies stupid. Nomatter who they are, where you are, what the situation is, what circumstances are, or what you say in character. They instantly become the equivalent of Doctor Evil.

Um.


Feint: 1. a movement made in order to deceive an adversary; an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack...


That's a tactical feint. The Knight's ability does just that.

In essence, the Knight says, "Hey look, I'm more dangerous than he is. Might want to kill me first."

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-24, 11:51 AM
*headdesk*

Ugh. Firstly, read up on the definitions of a feint. Secondly, you didn't pay attention to the first sentence of that piece of post of mines you quoted.

What the ability Does, is make your enemies stupid. Nomatter who they are, where you are, what the situation is, what circumstances are, or what you say in character. They instantly become the equivalent of Doctor Evil.No matter who they are, where you are, what the situation is...yeah right, IF THEY FAIL THE WILL SAVE THEY GET, by the way.

It also specifically says that the target is NOT thrown in to a mindless rage, and isn't forced to do anything, really. It just means they now consider you their top priority to attack. Because you convinced them you were more of a threat! That's what the ability says it does.

Which, BTW, neatly fits into the definition of a feint maneuver.
A movement made in order to deceive an adversary; an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack: military feints; the feints of a skilled fencer.The knight presents himself as the "distraction," and the Challenge ability represents convincing the enemy that they should attack him. They get a save to realize that maybe taking out the wizard might be a better idea.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-24, 11:53 AM
No matter who they are, where you are, what the situation is...yeah right, IF THEY FAIL THE WILL SAVE THEY GET, by the way.

It also specifically says that the target is NOT thrown in to a mindless rage, and isn't forced to do anything, really. It just means they now consider you their top priority to attack. Because you convinced them you were more of a threat! That's what the ability says it does.

Which, BTW, neatly fits into the definition of a feint maneuver.The knight presents himself as the "distraction," and the Challenge ability represents convincing the enemy that they should attack him. They get a save to realize that maybe taking out the wizard might be a better idea.

Glad to see you and I are on the same page, Spider Brigade.

Dausuul
2007-05-24, 11:54 AM
I know what you mean. I actually looked at it from a different perspective though. When I first heard about this class (I play core only), I immediately thought WOW. And aggro management applied to D&D gives me a knee-jerk reaction.

I see it the exact opposite way. D&D is built on the assumption that monsters have aggro--that is, if the fighter is in the front, the monsters will attack the fighter first, allowing him or her to tank for the squishier party members. Of course, D&D has no such mechanic. Since a large justification for the existence of fighters is "the casters need somebody to stand between them and the monsters," it's a fundamental design flaw if the fighter cannot actually do that effectively.

To me, the inclusion of a feature that allows the knight to draw enemy attacks is a recognition that D&D games do not have aggro, and if people want to play the tough guy who takes hits for his squishy friends, they need some way to make that happen within the rules.


That aside, if a player that is not a Knight tries to do a taunt I think the DM would be under pressure to make it not work since the Knight has a specific class ability that allows him to do it. If other players could to it too it would seem to weaken the Knight's ability. If other players have no chance of succeeding on a roleplaying taunt it would seem to limit roleplaying.

This is a legitimate complaint, but it's also a problem that is pervasive throughout D&D. If I'm a fighter-type and I want to make a wild swing that sacrifices accuracy for power... well, if I've got Power Attack, I can do that. If I didn't pick up that feat, I can't, even though it makes total sense that I should be able to (if not as effectively as the Power Attack fighter). Or if I want to charge an enemy with a sword in each hand and stab him with both at once, I can't even try it unless I've got Dual Strike.

It's the essential flaw of a system that relies on custom-built rules for every clever trick a character might try; those who don't have access to the rules can't try the trick.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-24, 11:55 AM
Take a moment to think about what the ability does, rather then what it is flavoured to do. Enemies being That stupid all of a sudden belong in comedies.
So why does your enemy have to be stupid just because you are able to convince him or her that he or she should beat you up rather than someone else? Enemy intelligence doesn't even come into play.


That bad movies have done the same doesn't excuse it.
I'll leave the defense of theses genres to someone better versed in them.

In the mean time, I can see about digging up some fiction with better reputations, if you'd like.


The only things I feel are exempt from this are combat and magic, because those are things we can't do around the table.
And I cannot make off the cuff inspiring speeches, particularly dire threats, honor-impugning challenges, or other such actions—around the table or, indeed, anywhere else.

Guess I'm a bad role-player then.

My view of role-playing makes it closer to how it's used in psychology—simply a matter of understanding your character's actions and motivations. "Sir Percival raises his sword, shouting, 'Halt, heathens! Stand and fight, for only then can your honor be salvaged!'" may sound prettier than, "Sir Percival issues a grand challenge to the bad guys," but neither is any less role-playing as long as the person playing Sir Percival can explain why Sir Percival would issue a challenge at that particular moment to those particular enemies. In fact, the former may be considered poor role-playing if that particular challenge could not be backed up with any evidence from the way Sir Percival was portrayed earlier.

In any case, as I alluded to above, I am compelled to define role-playing as such in part because not everyone is up to the task of actually acting out their character's mannerisms. They may be able to imagine the character and really understand him or her, but that does not mean they have the talent to portray that character. And participation in this game should not require one to be an improvisational theatre guru. (Nor should one's skill in that field determine whether or not you get bonuses on your Diplomacy rolls. It's the character that ultimately makes the speech, not the player.)

And, believe it or not, I do believe that role-playing of this sort does indeed further the game. It might not sound pretty, but it's what determines the action on the table. It just doesn't seem to be very consistent with the way you use the term.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-24, 11:58 AM
That's a tactical feint. The Knight's ability does just that.

In essence, the Knight says, "Hey look, I'm more dangerous than he is. Might want to kill me first."

Yes, cept that "Might want to kill me first" is Not a feint of the Knight himself. It a feint in the overal tactic. The ability however, makes it the Knight's only.

"The ability coerces the target that you are more dangerous than their normally intended target." May be constituted as a possible feinting maneuvre, but if so, a Very situational one. Which the Knight's Challenge is not. The Knight's Challenge works anywhere, everywhere.


Semantic's over feinting aside, it still doesn't change what the ability does: ie make the enemy stupid, regardless of circumstance.


@Tormsskull: I know. I mean't "I doubt it in this case" since I've seen more of Shhalahr's postings. I don't think he's got a much different idea of what roleplaying is then mines, only that he's probably got a different idea of its application.

EvilElitest
2007-05-24, 11:58 AM
I personally found the book of Nine swords and the book of exalted deeds over powered, because the classes I saw in the nine sword had an endless amount of uses of there speciall abilities and the book of exalted deeds had super feats which I gave the title to How to make your monk even more horibaly unbalanced.

1. Nine swords isn't unbalnced compared to say, wizards
2. Exalted Deeds is quite balenced, bear in mind, to get the benifits you have to be, well, exalted
from,
EE

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-24, 12:12 PM
So why does your enemy have to be stupid just because you are able to convince him or her that he or she should beat you up rather than someone else? Enemy intelligecne doesn't even come into play.

Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?



In the mean time, I can see about digging up some fiction with better reputations, if you'd like.

Take the movie Swordfish then. John Travolta play the most convincing BBEG I've ever seen. Now take one of the last scene's where he was escaping. If Stanley had been a Knight, a Genius of a BBEG would have completely messed up his perfect intricate plan just because he fails a will-save and turns to face Stanley instead of boarding the helicopter.

Image how retarded that would have been.



And I cannot make off the cuff inspiring speeches, particularly dire threats, honor-impugning challenges, or other such actions—around the table or, indeed, anywhere else.

Guess I'm a bad role-player then.

Good lord, stop trying so hard to misunderstand me. It doesn't matter how well you can act or not. As long as whatever effort you make has some influnce. With the Knight's Challenge, it doesn't matter What you say at all. It doesn't matter what's going on around you. It doesn't matter who you're talking to. All that matters is whether the will-save is passed or failed. That, is bad mechanics. Player effort doesn't count for anything with what is essentially a diplomatic ability.




@Spiderbrigade:


No matter who they are, where you are, what the situation is...yeah right, IF THEY FAIL THE WILL SAVE THEY GET, by the way.

It also specifically says that the target is NOT thrown in to a mindless rage, and isn't forced to do anything, really. It just means they now consider you their top priority to attack. Because you convinced them you were more of a threat! That's what the ability says it does.

Yeah. Cause failing a will-save is all that matters ey? It doesn't matter whether your opponent is intelligent or whether he's knows he's much weaker then you. Nothing matters. Nothing at all. Not the circumstances. Not the people. Not those involved. Not even those playing! Just have him roll a will-save. Yay. GREAT POTENTIAL FOR ROLEPLAYING HERE PEOPLE! Feels just like a computer game.

And secondly, it doesn't matter that the target doesn't go into a berserk rage. What matters, is that the target stops doing whatever he/she/it is doing for no better reason then failing a will-save.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-24, 12:25 PM
Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?

One word: Plot.

EvilElitest
2007-05-24, 12:25 PM
Personally, I think ToB maneuvers set a great direction for class abilities to go in. Regulating ability use on the encounter scale, instead of the time scale. Eliminates the need to worry about if the party is fully stocked on spells and what-not.

As for Book of Exalted Deeds, there's a lesson to be learned there: Roleplaying restrictions don't make for good mechanical balance. Some of the "exalted" requiring feats/classes are more powerful then usual, and their balancing factor is supposedly that the characters have to be "extra good"; something that doesn't matter if the DM doesn't enforce it the way the book expects it to be, or if the game isn't RP-centric and "seriously acting your alignment" is deemed irrelevant.

Any rule can be broken if the DM doesn't enforce it, exalted deeds are tough, if you read the first chapter
from,
EE

Jack Mann
2007-05-24, 12:26 PM
Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?

Nothing. But that's all right because the knight's challenge doesn't work that way. Seriously. Read it again. The BBEG does not have to attack the knight. He just has to attack the knight if he decides to attack. He can just pull the lever instead. And this is assuming he fails his will save.



Take the movie Swordfish then. John Travolta play the most convincing BBEG I've ever seen. Now take one of the last scene's where he was escaping. If Stanley had been a Knight, a Genius of a BBEG would have completely messed up his perfect intricate plan just because he fails a will-save and turns to face Stanley instead of boarding the helicopter.

Image how retarded that would have been.

Quite retarded, especially since the knight's challenge wouldn't prevent him from doing so.

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-24, 12:30 PM
Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?

Yeah. Cause failing a will-save is all that matters ey? It doesn't matter whether your opponent is intelligent or whether he's knows he's much weaker then you. Nothing matters. Nothing at all. Not the circumstances. Not the people. Not those involved. Not even those playing! Just have him roll a will-save. Yay. GREAT POTENTIAL FOR ROLEPLAYING HERE PEOPLE! Feels just like a computer game.

And secondly, it doesn't matter that the target doesn't go into a berserk rage. What matters, is that the target stops doing whatever he/she/it is doing for no better reason then failing a will-save.Actually, re-read the ability. What it says is that "creatures who fail this save are forced to attack you with their ranged or melee attacks in preference over other available targets." That doesn't mean he drops what he's doing. It means that if he's attacking somebody, it has to be you.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-05-24, 12:31 PM
Nothing. But that's all right because the knight's challenge doesn't work that way. Seriously. Read it again. The BBEG does not have to attack the knight. He just has to attack the knight if he decides to attack. He can just pull the lever instead. And this is assuming he fails his will save.

If I recall correctly, the wording is such that if the will-save is failed, the npc doesn't have to attack the knight, but doesn't have the option to ignore him either. If you can perhaps quote a little bit of it for me to re-read?


@Fax: Plot =/= Good Plot. If I were playing a non-serious comedic DnD game, I might use the Knight class. I would also use the Fumble rules for more whacky occurences.

In any other DnD game however, I do not want an "Instant stupify" ability in the game. If you want to communicate something to a foe, we already have rules for that.




[edit]

Actually, re-read the ability. What it says is that "creatures who fail this save are forced to attack you with their ranged or melee attacks in preference over other available targets." That doesn't mean he drops what he's doing. It means that if he's attacking somebody, it has to be you.

Right. So if a Knight challenges me, I cast a spell on the floor near the wizard instead. Afterall, I'm not attacking, I'm just casting a spell on the floor. [/sarcasm]

I have seen no provision in the rule that allows your character to do anything other then pay attention to the Knight despite whatever he/she/it was doing first.

But I may be mistaken, I'll know when I can read it again. If I am mistaken however, this ability goes from "bad mechanics" to "Pathetic mechanics". Not really an improvement for our MMO class is it?

Jack Mann
2007-05-24, 12:36 PM
Nope, nothing in the wording says he can't ignore you. The only effect is that he has to choose you with any attack he makes. Nothing else. It might be reasonable to assume that you're the one he'll say, "And now, Sir X, world domination will be mine!" or "Damn you, Sir X, I'll get you next time!" to, but he's quite free to run away or set off his doomsday device or sip tea if he wants.

Psiwave
2007-05-24, 01:01 PM
How is this knights ability so terrible? If the BBEG was about to pull his doomsday lever and as a result of a spell he fell asleep after failing a will save I doubt we'd be having this argument. The function of the will save is to represent the psychological tactics employed by the knight against the BBEG if the 'Genius' BBEG is mentally superior then he'll probably pass the save anyway. if he has an astronomical int and low Wis then getting distracted by the night is exactly the sort of thing you would expect anyway.
In extreme circumstances the DM is perfectly within his rights to award the BBEG circumstance modifiers to counter the instant stupidity effect.

Jack Mann
2007-05-24, 01:05 PM
if he has an astronomical int and low Wis then getting distracted by the night is exactly the sort of thing you would expect anyway.

"And now, the world will be... Say, that's a beautiful moon up there. That's sure one thing I'm going to miss, when the world's gone. And those stars... What? Hey! Stop foiling me, dammit!"

...Sorry, couldn't resist.

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-24, 01:05 PM
But I may be mistaken, I'll know when I can read it again. If I am mistaken however, this ability goes from "bad mechanics" to "Pathetic mechanics". Not really an improvement for our MMO class is it?Wait, so if you're right about the Challenge ability, the class sucks. And if you're wrong...it still sucks? Nice.

The whole point of this is that you have this idea that the knight's abilities "cause the enemy to become stupid," and that equals MMO class for you. And we're trying to show you that, in fact, the ability doesn't cause stupidity, and isn't equivalent to an MMO ability.

But somehow if we prove that, it doesn't mean that the class isn't as bad as you said? I don't understand how that works.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-24, 01:26 PM
Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?
As has been said, the Knight's Challenge doesn't force a fellow to stop dead in his or her tracks. Howver, even if it did, I'd say pulling a doomsday lever constitutes an attack on the entire world, and, thus, the knight is in the area of effect. So that does fulfill attacking the knight.

Likwise...


Take the movie Swordfish then. John Travolta play the most convincing BBEG I've ever seen. Now take one of the last scene's where he was escaping. If Stanley had been a Knight, a Genius of a BBEG would have completely messed up his perfect intricate plan just because he fails a will-save and turns to face Stanley instead of boarding the helicopter.
Now, I haven't seen Swordfish, so I'm not familiar with context of the situation. But why couldn't this BBEG both board the 'copter and attack? The knight's challenge doesn't forbid ranged attacks, such as if this BBEG had a gun, or even trying to run the knight down with a helicopter, if it came to that.


Good lord, stop trying so hard to misunderstand me.
Oh, yes. If I misunderstand you, it's because I'm trying to do so. No one misunderstands anything unless they're trying to do so, right?

I admit I made a few assumptions, but they were consistent with the way most people refer to "giving them a bonus for role-playing" and so forth.


It doesn't matter how well you can act or not. As long as whatever effort you make has some influnce. With the Knight's Challenge, it doesn't matter What you say at all. It doesn't matter what's going on around you. It doesn't matter who you're talking to.
Uh, no. All that matters very much. The knight's challenge only places very few restrictions on targets' actions. And the rest of those things you mention do determine how the target adapts to those restrictions.

Marius
2007-05-24, 02:18 PM
I don't get what's the big problem with the Knight's challenge... a wizard could cast "sleep" (or any other save-die/lose spell) and the fight will be over.

Vulgosh
2007-05-24, 02:58 PM
I don't get what's the big problem with the Knight's challenge... a wizard could cast "sleep" (or any other save-die/lose spell) and the fight will be over.

Either way it all depends on the opponents saves.

Bassetking
2007-05-24, 03:01 PM
Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?

"Your Mother wears Army Boots and offers physical intimacy to Dretches for Electrum" Comes to mind.

You're looking for an RP reasoning behind the Knight's Challenge, rather than it being a Will Save Vs. Stupidity?

Make it that. Whatever the Knight has just said, whatever action she has taken was the action required to make the BBEG turn, spit defiantly, and say "Screw the rest of them, YOU DIE NOW."

Think this is a poor choice of Action for a BBEG?

Let's draw from DC Comics, and see what reaction we might provoke if we said "OI! BALDY!" To Lex Luthor.

From Marvel Comics, Consider saying "MUTANT FREAKJOB!" To Magneto.



Take the movie Swordfish then. John Travolta play the most convincing BBEG I've ever seen. Now take one of the last scene's where he was escaping. If Stanley had been a Knight, a Genius of a BBEG would have completely messed up his perfect intricate plan just because he fails a will-save and turns to face Stanley instead of boarding the helicopter.

Image how retarded that would have been.

Well, Had Stanley shouted "I Told the Feds about the Frozen Corpses". It easily could have given John Travolta pause in his final, dramatic exit...

But seeing as how Mr. Travolta wasn't attacking anyone, I fail to see how this interaction would be an appropriate Use of the Knight's "Challenge" Ability; further, since he didn't proceed to attack anyone AFTER Stanley would have used the ability, The challenge could have succeeded, and still not affected the interaction or plot.



Good lord, stop trying so hard to misunderstand me. It doesn't matter how well you can act or not. As long as whatever effort you make has some influnce. With the Knight's Challenge, it doesn't matter What you say at all. It doesn't matter what's going on around you. It doesn't matter who you're talking to. All that matters is whether the will-save is passed or failed. That, is bad mechanics. Player effort doesn't count for anything with what is essentially a diplomatic ability.

A Brief Message, sir, from Morbo, The News Monster.

http://www.superdickery.com/images/misc/morbo.jpg
CHALLENGE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

From my own standpoint... Huh? As long as you make SOME effort, it's kosher, but to say "My character makes a direct insult so cutting that the enemy is helpless but to answer my cry, in the face of the welling emotions within him" Doesn't pass muster?

I... I am trying to understand your viewpoint, sir, but... "Player effort in regards to checks" seems a dangerous slope to precedent.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-24, 03:07 PM
http://www.superdickery.com/images/misc/morbo.jpg
CHALLENGE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Absoballylutley yes.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-05-24, 04:39 PM
Huh? The Knight's Challenge ability non-conducive to roleplay? In that "If he attacks, the knight must either be the target or included if it's AOE?"? I seriously can't level with your viewpoint, pirate. At the very least, Challenge is less overpowered and more role-play friendly than, say, the Wizard's "Baleful Polymorph" or any number of his "save or die and/or suck" spells. (Hell, some arcane spells don't even let the opponent GET a save! Otto's Irresistable Dance, anyone?)

For an example of how spellcasters can work for roleplaying at their least conducive, what more do I have to say than OTS issue 456, AKA the most recent one as of this post date?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html

The Knight's Challenge is, if anything, more conducive to roleplaying than any of the wizards Will Save effects. It's essentially an ability similiar to using diplomacy to LOWER someone's standing with you. "Stand and fight, Snivelous Cur!" to a Gnoll... "Your mother was a Sewer Rat" to a Kobold, Or just "Hey... You!" if you're a yellow dragon challenging an Ogre...


Edit: Either way, let's not get sidetracked- we're getting off this thread's main purpouse- overpowered rule books...

Raum
2007-05-24, 06:56 PM
Well, the PHB is the most "overpowered" source book. It gave us CoDzilla and Time Stopping wizards. None of the other books quite reach that level.

On the Knight's challenge discussion, whether or not it can be role played shouldn't really be a question. While not all mechanics encourage it, any can be role played. I dislike the ability for other reasons...some of which are purely metagame reasons (I shudder when considering how it might be used to turn PnP RPGs into a version of Evercamp.) while others are because I dislike the mechanics, fluff, or effects.

It's mostly the effects though...to paraphrase Cyborg Pirate, it makes victims do stupid things. For an example, consider a Knight as the antagonist instead of as the PC. The Knight sends his men at arms to kill whomever the PCs are protecting while he stands in front of them and issues a challenge (Test of Mettle) to all the PCs. Those with poor Will saves will likely fail. Those with good Will saves probably have a 30-50% chance of failing.

And every PC who fails cannot attack the men at arms busy killing the person they're supposed to be body guarding. They have to do something "stupid" instead.

Tormsskull
2007-05-24, 07:02 PM
And every PC who fails cannot attack the men at arms busy killing the person they're supposed to be body guarding. They have to do something "stupid" instead.

Exactly. That's why the ability is inherently bad for roleplaying.

Raum
2007-05-24, 07:08 PM
I don't really agree with that Tormskull. I've role played stupid or unwise characters a time or two...and had fun doing so. I will admit the Knight's challenge may force you to role play some thing normally out of character, but even that can be role played.

It's just more fun (in my experience) to play the unwise rogue always getting into trouble than it is to play the protective guardian who lost his head in the heat of the moment. Either is possible to role play.

Bassetking
2007-05-24, 10:59 PM
Exactly. That's why the ability is inherently bad for roleplaying.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you this...

Why is it that a Bard's song can convince his party members to perform their duties in a more apt manner?

Charisma.

What is it that makes the Sorcerer capable of rending asunder the very fabric of physics?

Charisma.

What allows the Knight to make(As, per the PHBII text, an ability similar to Bardic Music) A challenging call across a battlefield, even if his enemy is incapable of understanding him?

Charisma.

This following comment is a question directed towards the individuals whom claim that the Knight's Challenge is inherantly poor for Roleplay, due to its effects, and its execution; it is tendered in a spirit of actual inquiry, and is not proffered with malice or sarcasm. It is presented in two parts.

1) Do you require your Bardic Players to play instruments at the table, or to read poetry, in order to make use of their Bardic Music?

2) Would you deny the BBEG Bard his ability to use "Suggestion" as part of his Bardic Music, since the use of such produces an effect that removes choice from the players?

If the answer to the first postulate is "No", then why fault the inability of a player to actually match the actions of their character? The arguement that the action is inherantly poor for roleplay due to the removal of individual player action is as sensical as saying that a Fighter's Strength check makes for poor roleplay, as the player is not, himself, straining to lift a boulder.((If the answer is yes, please, PLEASE let me videotape your sessions; We'll make a KILLING on Youtube))

With regards to the second, If we're outlawing "Suggestion" from the Bard BBEG, are we outlawing it from the Wizard? The Sorcerer? How about Dominate? Geas? Hold Person? Sleep? If we're NOT going to outlaw the Bardic BBEG the use of "Suggestion" then why outlaw the Knight BBEG the ability to Use "Test of Mettle"?



((This post brought to you by the Greyhawk Council for Charisma. "It's not just a Dump Stat anymore!"))

Pauwel
2007-05-25, 12:54 AM
Because the Knight's Challenge isn't magical in nature. There's not supposed to be anything supernatural about it. It's not supposed to control the minds of your targets, and that's why it's a problem that it can, in some circumstances, force the targets to do things that are totally nonsensical.

Personally, though, I'd just not let the challenge work if it didn't make sense. That'll solve almost any problem that might come up.

Jasdoif
2007-05-25, 01:44 AM
I'm not seeing how the Knight is overpowered. So far the arguments are that it's dumb because it's like something out of an MMORPG, which is personal opinion; that it's bad because roleplaying is supposed to have a mechanical effect in combat instead of a mechanical effect having the same mechanical effect in combat, which...really doesn't make sense with a mechanics-heavy system like D20's combat at all; and that it's bad because only supernatural effects should be like this, which is again personal opinion.

A sorcerer could cast sleep, charm person, hold person, dominate person, or their equivalents for other types, many more times then a similarly leveled knight could issue challenges; with effects that can prevent attacks entirely instead of simply making the knight a target in said attacks. On top of all the other handy spells a sorcerer can have. And yet, somehow, it's the knight that has a problem? :smallconfused:

Bassetking
2007-05-25, 01:49 AM
Because the Knight's Challenge isn't magical in nature. There's not supposed to be anything supernatural about it. It's not supposed to control the minds of your targets, and that's why it's a problem that it can, in some circumstances, force the targets to do things that are totally nonsensical.

Personally, though, I'd just not let the challenge work if it didn't make sense. That'll solve almost any problem that might come up.

PHBII, Page 24. The Knight's Challenge functions similar to Bardic Music.

PHBII, Page 25. "By playing on your enemies' ego, you can manipulate your foes."

By RAW, it IS supposed to control or influence the mind of your target, in much the same way that Bardic Music uses "Suggestion".

EDIT:

I'm not seeing how the Knight is overpowered. So far the arguments are that it's dumb because it's like something out of an MMORPG, which is personal opinion; that it's bad because roleplaying is supposed to have a mechanical effect in combat instead of a mechanical effect having the same mechanical effect in combat, which...really doesn't make sense with a mechanics-heavy system like D20's combat at all; and that it's bad because only supernatural effects should be like this, which is again personal opinion.

A sorcerer could cast sleep, charm person, hold person, dominate person, or their equivalents for other types, many more times then a similarly leveled knight could issue challenges; with effects that can prevent attacks entirely instead of simply making the knight a target in said attacks. On top of all the other handy spells a sorcerer can have. And yet, somehow, it's the knight that has a problem? :smallconfused:

Thank you, sir, for this.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-25, 03:29 AM
In one of my games when the party was around level 2 they came against a CR 8 monster. That monster then hit them with suggestion and told them that it was time they should leave. They failed their will saves and all left.

Does that make me a bad DM because an NPC used his powers to make the PCs do something stupid?

Psiwave
2007-05-25, 06:30 AM
And every PC who fails cannot attack the men at arms busy killing the person they're supposed to be body guarding. They have to do something "stupid" instead.

as opposed to when they fail a will save and fall asleep, or die? they are smart things to do in that scenario?

Dausuul
2007-05-25, 07:42 AM
Let me ask you this then. Why would the lvl 10 commoner BBEG stop with the process of pulling the lever on his doomsday device and face the lvl 12 Knight instead? What could the Knight possibly do or say to make this event make sense?

Assuming the challenge succeeded, the BBEG would pull the lever if it would help him deal with the knight. And if it won't help him deal with the knight, who is after all standing there menacing him with a sword, why wouldn't he let go the lever to defend himself?


Good lord, stop trying so hard to misunderstand me. It doesn't matter how well you can act or not. As long as whatever effort you make has some influnce. With the Knight's Challenge, it doesn't matter What you say at all. It doesn't matter what's going on around you. It doesn't matter who you're talking to. All that matters is whether the will-save is passed or failed. That, is bad mechanics. Player effort doesn't count for anything with what is essentially a diplomatic ability.

Funny you should mention diplomatic ability. Have you read the Diplomacy rules? They're far more nonsensical than the knight's challenge. A mid-level bard who's invested heavily in Diplomacy can reliably change Asmodeus himself from hostile to friendly... without even a saving throw.

Of course, any reasonable DM will apply modifiers based on circumstances to the Diplomacy check, and there will be cases in which you just don't have a chance. Likewise, I'd consider modifiers appropriate to the knight's challenge depending on circumstances, and there could well be times when it simply wouldn't work.

Also note that the challenge only works on opponents with a CR greater than or equal to the knight's level minus 2. They won't pick you as their target of choice unless they have at least some chance of success.


Yeah. Cause failing a will-save is all that matters ey? It doesn't matter whether your opponent is intelligent or whether he's knows he's much weaker then you. Nothing matters. Nothing at all. Not the circumstances. Not the people. Not those involved. Not even those playing! Just have him roll a will-save. Yay. GREAT POTENTIAL FOR ROLEPLAYING HERE PEOPLE! Feels just like a computer game.

How is this different from any other social mechanic? People often play characters who are more suave or charming--or, in the knight's case, better at provoking and manipulating their foes--than they are. That's why social mechanics exist.


And secondly, it doesn't matter that the target doesn't go into a berserk rage. What matters, is that the target stops doing whatever he/she/it is doing for no better reason then failing a will-save.

Substitute "failing a Sense Motive check" or "being subjected to Diplomacy" or "failing a roll versus Intimidate" for the above.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 09:30 AM
Because the Knight's Challenge isn't magical in nature.
So? One doesn't have to use magic to be good at egging one's opponents on and otherwise manipulating them.

Otherwise, how would you explain the Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy skills?

Pauwel
2007-05-25, 11:09 AM
PHBII, Page 24. The Knight's Challenge functions similar to Bardic Music.

PHBII, Page 25. "By playing on your enemies' ego, you can manipulate your foes."

By RAW, it IS supposed to control or influence the mind of your target, in much the same way that Bardic Music uses "Suggestion".

Influencing isn't the same as controlling. It only works the same as the Bardic music ability in a mechanical sense, not fluff-wise. It's only the fluff I have a problem with, not anything else.


So? One doesn't have to use magic to be good at egging one's opponents on and otherwise manipulating them.

Otherwise, how would you explain the Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy skills?

It's fine most of the time. In some specific situations, however, the ability as written doesn't really makes sense, regardless of how charismatic a knight is, or how skilled a knight in diplomacy might be.

Example: Irios Escariot, a warblade, has been cornered up against a stone wall by three elite mercenaries. Each of them are only slightly less powerful than he, and were he to put his guard down for even a single moment, they would all be able to make attacks of opportunity, and he would have to make a Tumble check with a high DC to be able to get past them at all.
In the background, Percival Adolphus Ponce, a Halfling knight and Irios' nemesis, wants to take on Irios himself. He has no connection to the mercenaries, but he doesn't mind that they've roughed him up a bit first.
Neither Irios nor the mercenaries have noticed the knight, and when Percival challenges Irios to a duel, Irios decides to nonsensically risk his life by trying to jump over the mercenaries, getting mauled by the attacks of opportunity instead.

See? A role-played example of the Test of Mettle, with the mechanics working in a very odd way indeed.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-25, 11:12 AM
Influencing isn't the same as controlling. It only works the same as the Bardic music ability in a mechanical sense, not fluff-wise. It's only the fluff I have a problem with, not anything else.

It's fine most of the time. In some specific situations, however, the ability as written doesn't really makes sense, regardless of how charismatic a knight is, or how skilled a knight in diplomacy might be.

Example: Irios Escariot, a warblade, has been cornered up against a stone wall by three elite mercenaries. Each of them are only slightly less powerful than he, and were he to put his guard down for even a single moment, they would all be able to make attacks of opportunity, and he would have to make a Tumble check with a high DC to be able to get past them at all.
In the background, Percival Adolphus Ponce, a Halfling knight and Irios' nemesis, wants to take on Irios himself. He has no connection to the mercenaries, but he doesn't mind that they've roughed him up a bit first.
Neither Irios nor the mercenaries have noticed the knight, and when Percival challenges Irios to a duel, Irios decides to nonsensically risk his life by trying to jump over the mercenaries, getting mauled by the attacks of opportunity instead.

See? A role-played example of the Test of Mettle, with the mechanics working in a very odd way indeed.

Except that Irios doesn't have to do that unless he wants to start swinging--which is already a bad idea in that situation. He'd be better served trying a standing leap/climb tactic or using an AoE maneuver that would hit all his foes as well as Percival.

Poppatomus
2007-05-25, 11:49 AM
Example: Irios Escariot, a warblade, has been cornered up against a stone wall by three elite mercenaries. Each of them are only slightly less powerful than he, and were he to put his guard down for even a single moment, they would all be able to make attacks of opportunity, and he would have to make a Tumble check with a high DC to be able to get past them at all.
In the background, Percival Adolphus Ponce, a Halfling knight and Irios' nemesis, wants to take on Irios himself. He has no connection to the mercenaries, but he doesn't mind that they've roughed him up a bit first.
Neither Irios nor the mercenaries have noticed the knight, and when Percival challenges Irios to a duel, Irios decides to nonsensically risk his life by trying to jump over the mercenaries, getting mauled by the attacks of opportunity instead.


I'm not familiar with the exact mechanics of the ability, but I gather it works something like taunt, with a will save or you must attack a single opponent, I imagine? It does seem like a fairly powerful ability, but there are a lot of powerful abilities, why should fighters/non-magic users be denied them? If you were being attacked by three guys and your caster nemisis showed up there would be any number of things he could do to increase your vulnerability, so its not as though the mechanic itself is unbalanced.

Also, if the issue is a fluff issue, why not change the fluff. Assuming your example is accurate, and the only possible option available to Irios is to take the AoO caused by moving why not explain it with more detail? such as:

Investigating a commotion, Percival bursts through a doorway and sees his Nemisis beset by opponents. Realizing this is his chance to end that pesky warblade once and for all, Percival calls out a challenge Irios simply can't resist. Calling upon all the emotions and trials of their decade long struggle, as well as challenging the very foundations of Irios identity and self-worth in just a few charged sentences, the Knight has pushed his enemy into an apoplectic rage. Irios has grown so angry that he no longer even cares about the mercanries he's fighting, leaping forward with a warcry. The duel begins, under the watchful eye of the stunned mercenaries, who are still considering their next move.


Alternatly, the speech could denigrate the mercenaries, or remind Irios of what a great jumper/tumbler he is, making the task of getting to Percival seem easier.

Vulgosh
2007-05-25, 01:33 PM
Influencing isn't the same as controlling. It only works the same as the Bardic music ability in a mechanical sense, not fluff-wise. It's only the fluff I have a problem with, not anything else.



It's fine most of the time. In some specific situations, however, the ability as written doesn't really makes sense, regardless of how charismatic a knight is, or how skilled a knight in diplomacy might be.

Example: Irios Escariot, a warblade, has been cornered up against a stone wall by three elite mercenaries. Each of them are only slightly less powerful than he, and were he to put his guard down for even a single moment, they would all be able to make attacks of opportunity, and he would have to make a Tumble check with a high DC to be able to get past them at all.
In the background, Percival Adolphus Ponce, a Halfling knight and Irios' nemesis, wants to take on Irios himself. He has no connection to the mercenaries, but he doesn't mind that they've roughed him up a bit first.
Neither Irios nor the mercenaries have noticed the knight, and when Percival challenges Irios to a duel, Irios decides to nonsensically risk his life by trying to jump over the mercenaries, getting mauled by the attacks of opportunity instead.

See? A role-played example of the Test of Mettle, with the mechanics working in a very odd way indeed.

I know this has basically been said before but thet challange isn't mind controll the cornered man could just as easily try and escape couldn't he.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 09:57 PM
Influencing isn't the same as controlling.
The challenge does not control anyone's mind. They opponent retains full mental faculty. That faculty is simply influenced to believe that it is important to attack the knight in preference to other foes.

If it were a spell rather than an extraordinary ability, it would be in enchantment (charm), which influences minds. It wold not be in enchantment (compulsion), which controls minds.


In the background, Percival Adolphus Ponce, a Halfling knight and Irios' nemesis, wants to take on Irios himself. He has no connection to the mercenaries, but he doesn't mind that they've roughed him up a bit first.
Neither Irios nor the mercenaries have noticed the knight, and when Percival challenges Irios to a duel, Irios decides to nonsensically risk his life by trying to jump over the mercenaries, getting mauled by the attacks of opportunity instead.
Re-read the description. Test of Mettle quite explicitly states affected opponents do not have to move to attack the knight if doing so would provoke attacks of opportunity. It's the thrid paragraph into the description of the Test of Mettle.

Also, just because it seems to have a relevance to the overall argument (that is, it's not directed at a specific point), do note that if an opponent other than the knight attacks a character affected by the Test of Mettle, the Test of Mettle ends for that character. That's also in the third paragraph.