I'd rather have Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards than LW/LW.

[Deathtongue]

I mean it. Yes, I acknowledge that Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards is unfair, paradigm-breaking, and a nightmare to balance. Linear Warriors/Linear Wizards dodges all of those problems while introducing no new ones. So why are we having this discussion at all?

To me, the biggest appeal of 3E D&D is that there was actual stuff for players to engage the setting with that didn't involve finding plot-device items or getting quests from the king. Again, it's completely unfair that only about a third of the 3E classes could actually do this, but a third is still better than zero (4E/5E). I distinctly remember getting the 4E D&D PHB (and again with the DMG2), getting excited at the possibility of a game that actually coded the experience of being anything other than a Bilbo-style questtaker what with the talk of paragon and epic tiers, and then being crushingly disappointed at how 25th-level 4E D&D plays, from a worldbuilding perspective, pretty much how it did at level 7.

Beyond that, though, the number of LWLW games completely and utterly swamp LWQW or QWQW for that matter. Game of Thrones and Conan the Barbarian settings are by nature simply easier to design. For every LWQW/QWQW TTRPG setting you care to name (Exalted), I can name five LWLW settings (GR's Dragon Age, GoT, 4E D&D, Torchbearer, Legend d20). We simply do not need to have another D&D game that envisions a Hero's Journey that's narratively indistinguishable from Elothar's (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Elothar_Warrior_of_Bladereach_(3.5e_Prestige_Class )).

Don't get me wrong. I strongly feel that 3E D&D's rejection of the typical LotR/Final Fantasy-derived character progression arc for casters was an accident. One of the most enduring complaints of mid and high-level APs is that they don't take into account the ability of casters. And settings and rulesets that derive from the 3E ruleset that care to acknowledge the balance problems (Legend d20, Pathfinder, even d20 Modern) always go for Linear Wizards instead of Quadratic Warriors. Nonetheless, I appreciate that a model that posits fantasy characters not simply doing the same things but with better numbers/special effects exists at all. And I'm very unhappy that 4E and 5E D&D went down the beaten path of 'screw it, wizards from now on are more like Harry Potter than Raistlin. Not only do they get balanced with the martials, but we can continue designing adventures that require them to journey across icy mountains and deal with mundane town guards'.

Personally, I'd prefer QWQW for my D&D over LWLW or LWQW. You get to have all of the fun of a setting that's not another interminable LotR clone and everyone gets to stay balanced with each other. Unfortunately, a lot of people (I'd go as far as to say the supermajority of D&D players), with some genre justification, think that a setup where fighters resemble F/SN Gilgamesh or Superman rather than Indiana Jones and Jaime Lannister is too anime. Or they don't like how scry-and-fry or bounded demon industries completely upend a lot of the basic tropes of GoT/LoTR-style fantasy but can accept it more if those things are in the hands of distant GMPC wizards rather than in player hands. So LWQW is an acceptable compromise.

[Malimar]

I don't have an opinion on your thesis, but it is traditional to spell out your acronyms the first time you use them, so everyone's on the same page about what you're talking about. It took me a minute to realize what you meant, and it would have taken me longer if there weren't already another post on the subject in the forum.

[Cosi]

I mean it. Yes, I acknowledge that Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards is unfair, paradigm-breaking, and a nightmare to balance. Linear Warriors/Linear Wizards dodges all of those problems while introducing no new ones. So why are we having this discussion at all?

I agree with the overall thesis of your post. My preferences are also Everyone Does Awesome Stuff > Some People Do Awesome Stuff > No One Does Awesome Stuff. That said, I think you've gotten too caught up in the terminology. The choice to have the game cap out at Conan isn't about how people scale, it's about a cap. You could play 3e with its Quadratic Wizards capped at 6th level for much the same effect. The problem you are complaining about (and it is absolutely both legitimate and massive) isn't really about power scaling. It's about a lot of things, including complexity, genre expectations, and player/DM power dynamics.


We simply do not need to have another D&D game that envisions a Hero's Journey that's narratively indistinguishable from Elothar's (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Elothar_Warrior_of_Bladereach_(3.5e_Prestige_Class )).

I don't have a comment here. I just think that class is funny and wanted to compliment your taste.

[Godskook]

Quadratic Warriors Quadratic Wizards is, by far, the standard preference among this forum, to the point that I'm largely confused this thread exists. Just look at which tier is considered most balanced: Tier 3. This contains Swordsages, Warblades, Bards, Factotums and Beguilers. Tier 1/2 aren't preferred simply because there's too many individually broken things available at those tiers, while tiers 5/6 are considered downright boring, with tier 4 being mildly ok.

[OldTrees1]

Ha! :smallbiggrin:

Something to recognize is when people are talking about Linear Warrior vs Quadratic Wizards is that they have an unstated baseline. Warriors in 3rd edition are not F(x)=mx+b and Wizards are not S(x)=aX2+bX+c.* However F(X) and S(X) are different orders of function and S(X) is a higher order. Or in other words as X grows towards infinity, S(X)/F(X) also grows towards infinity.

So your concern is not L/L vs Q/Q. Your concern is the ability for PCs to be able to engage the setting without needing a plot device/item as a crutch. I believe Strategic abilities was the term coined for that. The ability to impact and alter the setting on a large scale. While these abilities tend to appear in higher tiers it is not really directly related to the tiers themselves (other than WotC can't think of any non caster strategic abilities).

So could you elaborate a bit on what type of engagement you want and give some example abilities?


*A good look at feats alone should show a quadratic grow for warriors, Dread Necromancers display faster than cubic growth by their minions alone, and that does nothing to actually describe the exponential growth of Wizards (although it might be faster than exponental).

[Endarire]

I too like D&D 3.x for its ability to let player characters with their daily resources shape mountains, build cities, traverse the planes of existence, and so on. From a GM perspective, I need to have a campaign where this stuff matters (and is a worthy choice) or is expected to be disruptive or not useful (and forewarn the players appropriately).

My GMing attitude has been, "Make something difficult and let the players sort it out." Players go into secret agent mode when they want to win.

[Deathtongue]

Quadratic Warriors Quadratic Wizards is, by far, the standard preference among this forum, to the point that I'm largely confused this thread exists. Just look at which tier is considered most balanced: Tier 3. This contains Swordsages, Warblades, Bards, Factotums and Beguilers.I'm going to have to take exception with your assertion that a balance point of those classes means that we have Quadratic Warriors/Quadratic Wizards; at least when we use 3E D&D wizards and clerics as another possible balance point. With the exception of Beguilers, Warblades and Bards don't and can't really do anything narratively different from Fighters and Rangers. Outside of weird rules exploits or being granted specific plot devices, they still can't create floating castles or demon armies or upend iron industries or venture to the bottom of the sea.

Swordsages and Psychic Warriors stay viable longer than Fighters WRT to the imagined character progression and tropes of D&D characters, but they're still ultimately confined to the Harry Potter/Conan the Barbarian paradigm where they still need to travel on horses or hope that slaying the commander will disband the 8,000-orc strong army.

[Beheld]

I'm going to have to take exception with your assertion that a balance point of those classes means that we have Quadratic Warriors/Quadratic Wizards; at least when we use 3E D&D wizards and clerics as another possible balance point. With the exception of Beguilers, Warblades and Bards don't and can't really do anything narratively different from Fighters and Rangers. Outside of weird rules exploits or being granted specific plot devices, they still can't create floating castles or demon armies or upend iron industries or venture to the bottom of the sea.

I don't understand what you are saying? You are claiming that Clerics and Wizards can't do things narratively different from what Fighters do, but Bards and Beguilers and Warblades can?

Because if so, that is super wrong. I mean just for a start, there's literally a spell that allows Wizards to create Demon Armies and Venture to the bottom of the sea. Floating castles takes slightly more work, but you can totally still do that, it just takes 8th level spells and some knowledge of outer planes. Upend Iron Industry is vague enough that you could argue flooding the industry with millions of GP of Iron per day is just not enough, but I think it qualifies.

Or are you saying that Beguilers and Warblades and Bards can't? That would make more sense, although, you'd still be wrong on account of how Beguilers and Bards totally can do things narratively different, just not specifically build floating castles, or at least not without extra spell acquisition.

[Big Fau]

Or are you saying that Beguilers and Warblades and Bards can't? That would make more sense, although, you'd still be wrong on account of how Beguilers and Bards totally can do things narratively different, just not specifically build floating castles, or at least not without extra spell acquisition.

He likely means this, and I agree with you on it Beheld; Bards and Beguilers, by virtue of being Arcane casters, have the capability of accessing spells that DO bend reality around their whims.

[icefractal]

Oh, completely agreed. IMO, a game is like a buffet, and so while having "all good options" would be the best, "half great, half lousy" is still better than "all mediocre".

Since we're talking about the terminology though, I'll point out something that's always amused me about LFQW: the actual 3.x scale is not linear or quadratic, it's exponential. 2x = +2 CR. That's been baked into the system from the start.

[Big Fau]

Since we're talking about the terminology though, I'll point out something that's always amused me about LFQW: the actual 3.x scale is not linear or quadratic, it's exponential. 2x = +2 CR. That's been baked into the system from the start.

They claimed that, but it never plays out that way.

[OldTrees1]

They claimed that, but it never plays out that way.

It doesn't play out as linear or quadratic either.

[Tuvarkz]

To me, the biggest appeal of 3E D&D is that there was actual stuff for players to engage the setting with that didn't involve finding plot-device items or getting quests from the king. Again, it's completely unfair that only about a third of the 3E classes could actually do this, but a third is still better than zero (4E/5E). I distinctly remember getting the 4E D&D PHB (and again with the DMG2), getting excited at the possibility of a game that actually coded the experience of being anything other than a Bilbo-style questtaker what with the talk of paragon and epic tiers, and then being crushingly disappointed at how 25th-level 4E D&D plays, from a worldbuilding perspective, pretty much how it did at level 7.

When people ask for LW/LW, they mean 6/9 casters and full martial initiators, which means they have means of engaging the setting; but without the power to entirely break it as QWs do. There's no point to having a level system if the same level of a Fighter is an entirely different power level as the same level in a Wizard.

[Cosi]

When people ask for LW/LW, they mean 6/9 casters and full martial initiators, which means they have means of engaging the setting; but without the power to entirely break it as QWs do.

What exactly are Wizards (rather than Bards or Warblades) doing that breaks the setting? It can't be minionmancy, as Bards have charm monster. Is it teleport? scrying? Was giving the Wizard fabricate a bridge too far?

I should post a thread some time where we can talk about exactly which abilities people want in the game.


There's no point to having a level system if the same level of a Fighter is an entirely different power level as the same level in a Wizard.

Even if there's no correlation between power and level across classes, level still does stuff. For example, the way level based (rather than point based) advancement works requires that characters have some number of "diversity" abilities. If Wizards could sell their BAB for more spells, they would do that. Whether they should be able to do that is somewhat a matter of taste, but having a level system prevents them from doing that.

[EldritchWeaver]

When people ask for LW/LW, they mean 6/9 casters and full martial initiators, which means they have means of engaging the setting; but without the power to entirely break it as QWs do. There's no point to having a level system if the same level of a Fighter is an entirely different power level as the same level in a Wizard.

In addition to 6/9 casters, I would contend that Spheres of Power does somewhat linearize the QW. It is more of a 1.5 exponent. And you can still have full casters.


What exactly are Wizards (rather than Bards or Warblades) doing that breaks the setting? It can't be minionmancy, as Bards have charm monster. Is it teleport? scrying? Was giving the Wizard fabricate a bridge too far?

It is more about effects which, if logically applied, change the setting. People like to pretend that we have a medieval setting with a bit of fantasy, but the rules require something like a Tippyverse. Incidentally, Spheres of Power recognizes this and places anything setting-changing into advanced magic talents, which require explicit GM permission. Don't like that travel times are shortened with teleportation? Just don't give access to long-range versions. Scrying provides too much information? Cut it from the game. Want a more gritty game, where people don't get resurrected on a daily basis? Limit healing aspects. That can be done certainly in core as well, but either you need to vet every spell in advance or remove game breakers by denying the highest spell levels, in the hopes that this solves the problem at least for you.

[Extra Anchovies]

When people ask for LW/LW, they mean 6/9 casters and full martial initiators, which means they have means of engaging the setting; but without the power to entirely break it as QWs do. There's no point to having a level system if the same level of a Fighter is an entirely different power level as the same level in a Wizard.

The thing about the idea of "LF/LW" is that it is equivalent to "QF/QW", because the original LF/QW concept is a comparison of ability, specifically that the wizard's power growth is a polynomial degree higher than the fighter's. It's about relative class power.


What exactly are Wizards (rather than Bards or Warblades) doing that breaks the setting? It can't be minionmancy, as Bards have charm monster.

You're correct that minionmancy doesn't really have much setting- or campaign-breaking power. It does, however, often trivialize challenges on the adventure and encounter level. Bards can't summon or control of creatures nearly as easily as wizards can, so Bards aren't as much of a problem.


Is it teleport? scrying? Was giving the Wizard fabricate a bridge too far?

Yes, yes, and yes. Teleportation, scrying, and creation effects are pretty much the biggest three problems the wizard (and other full spellcasters) causes on a setting and campaign level. On an adventure and encounter scale, the most significant issues are action-economy breakers, minionmancy, and save-or-lose effects. That's not to say that any of those six will always be unbalancing, but they definitely all have to be carefully balanced and limited.

[Deathtongue]

Incidentally, Spheres of Power recognizes this and places anything setting-changing into advanced magic talents, which require explicit GM permission.I feel if the game requires explicit GM permission or intervention to access these things, even if they're quite powerful and assumption-shaking, you as the PC don't actually have the power to change the setting.

A GM can always give the party spaceships to travel outside of Golarian, magical herbs to let them safely travel underseas, keys to long-hidden teleportation circles, orbs that let them control dracolichs, etc. Or they can declare that the magical shops sell artifacts or that worker guilds have infinite-use Wall of Stone and Stone Shape custom items or that cheap and easy resurrection is available even in hamlets. But notice that this is all the same whether the party is a team of Wizard 15s or Commoner 7s. The real question is whether the players need to, as the default assumption, go through the GM in order to obtain these game effects. 4E and 5E D&D say 'yes, at all times'. 3E D&D says 'no if you're a high-level caster, yes otherwise'. The latter option is by definition more unbalanced and unfair (unless you make everyone play casters), but as far as creating stories and player empowerment goes, I know which I prefer.

[Deathtongue]

Yes, yes, and yes. Teleportation, scrying, and creation effects are pretty much the biggest three problems the wizard (and other full spellcasters) causes on a setting and campaign level. On an adventure and encounter scale, the most significant issues are action-economy breakers, minionmancy, and save-or-lose effects. That's not to say that any of those six will always be unbalancing, but they definitely all have to be carefully balanced and limited.I agree that they're problems if you imagine D&D as being 'LotR or Conan the Barbarian but with additional fantasy lore in it' at all levels of play, but I don't think that they're problems in abstract. It does mean that you need to come up with a different paradigm for high-level adventurers. I'm okay with that.

[Extra Anchovies]

I agree that they're problems if you imagine D&D as being 'LotR or Conan the Barbarian but with additional fantasy lore in it' at all levels of play, but I don't think that they're problems in abstract. It does mean that you need to come up with a different paradigm for high-level adventurers. I'm okay with that.

Having them present in a setting to any degree will inevitably result in major structural changes to the game world that would affect everyone, not just high-level characters. The choice is between accepting a Tippyverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?222007-The-Definitive-Guide-to-the-Tippyverse-By-Emperor-Tippy), removing/strictly limiting the sorts of teleportation, scrying, and creation magic that the Tippyverse is founded on, having no NPCs capable of and interested in taking actions that result in a Tippyverse (Eberron sorta does this), or (and this is the most common one by far) ignoring the fact that such magic exists. If you leave magic as-is and want a conventional fantasy setting, you need to either suspend disbelief (which usually works) or make the PCs the first characters in history to break tenth level or so.

[Cosi]

Incidentally, Spheres of Power recognizes this and places anything setting-changing into advanced magic talents, which require explicit GM permission. Don't like that travel times are shortened with teleportation? Just don't give access to long-range versions.

This attitude is terrible for the game. It is not the DM's prerogative what abilities characters should have. Because it is not the DM's game. It's everyone's prerogative. Because it is everyone's game. The DM banning teleport because he wants a different game than everyone else is a problem. Just like playing an Incantatrix in a party of Healer, Fighter, Ninja because you want a higher powered game is a problem. In fact, it's the exact same problem. One player is demanding that the game be played the way they want over the objections of the group.


I feel if the game requires explicit GM permission or intervention to access these things, even if they're quite powerful and assumption-shaking, you as the PC don't actually have the power to change the setting.

Yes. Any ability that requires explicit DM approval is not an ability you have in any meaningful sense.


I agree that they're problems if you imagine D&D as being 'LotR or Conan the Barbarian but with additional fantasy lore in it' at all levels of play, but I don't think that they're problems in abstract. It does mean that you need to come up with a different paradigm for high-level adventurers. I'm okay with that.

Couple of comments (also directed to some extent at earlier mentions of the Tippyverse):

I don't think high level abilities warp the setting as much as people make out, precisely because of how setting warping they are. If you can make anything you want with fabricate + true creation, summon servants to do anything you want with planar binding, and build anything you want with wall of stone, why bother interacting with peasants? What do they have to offer you to get you to cast spells on their behalf?

Also, the setting is already warped because of high level enemies. The existence of Hell as a real place you can go to is a pretty stark divergence from anything in LotR (the closest anything comes is an incredibly generous reading of Moria and the Balrog). If you are already postulating another world full of Devils and such, is it really such a stretch that such a world would have a different economy?

[EldritchWeaver]

I feel if the game requires explicit GM permission or intervention to access these things, even if they're quite powerful and assumption-shaking, you as the PC don't actually have the power to change the setting.

A GM can always give the party spaceships to travel outside of Golarian, magical herbs to let them safely travel underseas, keys to long-hidden teleportation circles, orbs that let them control dracolichs, etc. Or they can declare that the magical shops sell artifacts or that worker guilds have infinite-use Wall of Stone and Stone Shape custom items or that cheap and easy resurrection is available even in hamlets. But notice that this is all the same whether the party is a team of Wizard 15s or Commoner 7s. The real question is whether the players need to, as the default assumption, go through the GM in order to obtain these game effects. 4E and 5E D&D say 'yes, at all times'. 3E D&D says 'no if you're a high-level caster, yes otherwise'. The latter option is by definition more unbalanced and unfair (unless you make everyone play casters), but as far as creating stories and player empowerment goes, I know which I prefer.


This attitude is terrible for the game. It is not the DM's prerogative what abilities characters should have. Because it is not the DM's game. It's everyone's prerogative. Because it is everyone's game. The DM banning teleport because he wants a different game than everyone else is a problem. Just like playing an Incantatrix in a party of Healer, Fighter, Ninja because you want a higher powered game is a problem. In fact, it's the exact same problem. One player is demanding that the game be played the way they want over the objections of the group.

Yes. Any ability that requires explicit DM approval is not an ability you have in any meaningful sense.

A group should agree on which rules are used and which are not. If all agree on having no casters with teleport for example, then I don't see any problem with enforcing such a limitation. It is NOT intended as a tool to enforce a particular playstyle over others people's head. (Which can be attempted to do so regardless of rule system. Most importantly, this is not an attempt to micromanage the player characters. If a GM does want to do that, he doesn't need anything else than to cite rule 0 anyway. If a player does not have fun, he can still change groups, but that is always an option.)

There are three reasons why you would want to change the access to effects: Setting, group playstyle, adventure building. Each of any add their own requirements and should be checked against each other in advance, so one can see where a conflict arises. When I stated that some things require GM permission, then I didn't mean that you have to beg as a player. Instead the GM defines the set of stuff a player can use, and the player can choose anything according to rules. That is no different compared to a core-only game, which disallows the gunslingers or arcanists or a myriad of feats. It just makes it more obvious what is going on, as well easier to cut anything in particular, compared to banning spell level 7+.

So if you want to have a game, where players can influence the setting in grand scale, just say: "All advanced talents are allowed!"

[digiman619]

This attitude is terrible for the game. It is not the DM's prerogative what abilities characters should have. Because it is not the DM's game. It's everyone's prerogative. Because it is everyone's game. The DM banning teleport because he wants a different game than everyone else is a problem. Just like playing an Incantatrix in a party of Healer, Fighter, Ninja because you want a higher powered game is a problem. In fact, it's the exact same problem. One player is demanding that the game be played the way they want over the objections of the group.

Um, no, you're wrong. I seem to have misplaced my DMG, but it explicitly stated that the GM has the right to disallow certain classes ("no psionics"), races ("Core races only") or class/race combinations (I want a 1st Edition feel for my game, so no Dwarf Wizards). It warned that players might get angry that you're arbitrarily restricting their choices and suggests finding something to make up for that fact, but yeah, as GM you have that power.

[Willie the Duck]

Not this debate again. Ugh.

The DM has the right to do anything, including driving his players away (just like the players have the right not to play). We're simply not ever going to resolve this one. Especially because those who argue for the DM rights are going to picture the player who wants to play a cheese machine character whining because he can't break open the DM's game with infinite wish combos and those arguing for player rights are going to picture the quintessential bad DM who thinks DM fiat amounts to dictatorial power and only worry whether they are having fun.

Whether the DMG actually says that the DM can or can't disallow something is irrelevant. If the DM wants one thing and the players want another, it is everyone's problem. Saying either the DM has to yield or the Player has to is completely ignoring the idea that people who actually would want to game together just might be able to dialogue and negotiate and come to an agreement.


Since we're talking about the terminology though, I'll point out something that's always amused me about LFQW: the actual 3.x scale is not linear or quadratic, it's exponential. 2x = +2 CR. That's been baked into the system from the start.

I should probably stop myself (because I had pendantism in others so I should live by that rule), but wouldn't that actually be geometric, not exponential?

[Jeff the Green]

This attitude is terrible for the game. It is not the DM's prerogative what abilities characters should have. Because it is not the DM's game. It's everyone's prerogative. Because it is everyone's game. The DM banning teleport because he wants a different game than everyone else is a problem. Just like playing an Incantatrix in a party of Healer, Fighter, Ninja because you want a higher powered game is a problem. In fact, it's the exact same problem. One player is demanding that the game be played the way they want over the objections of the group.

While I agree in theory, in practice a DM needs more say than the players. The amount of power the players have greatly affects the amount of work the DM has. The same is not true of the Incantatrix/Healer/Fighter/Ninja problem.

[Beheld]

I should probably stop myself (because I had pendantism in others so I should live by that rule), but wouldn't that actually be geometric, not exponential?

Pretty sure it's logarithmic.

[icefractal]

Power = 2 ^ (L/2), from 4th level onward; that'd be exponential IIRC.

As far as world-changing ... well personally, I've seen plenty of "typical fantasy settings" and really have no need to play yet another one. So if high-level abilities change the world? Good. YMMV, of course, but I'd say that if you never get the ability to affect a larger scope of things outside of GM fiat (which you could get just as easily at 1st level), then what point does being a higher level even serve? At that point you might as well ditch the level system and save everyone some paperwork.

[Troacctid]

People like to pretend that we have a medieval setting with a bit of fantasy, but the rules require something like a Tippyverse.
Common misconception. One of the core assumptions of the Tippyverse, according to Tippy, is that it occurs in a world where no divine entities are interested in intervening to prevent it. In a setting where functionally omnipotent beings regularly meddle in mortal affairs, a Tippyverse will not necessarily arise, because there will often be deities with a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

[Xar Zarath]

Common misconception. One of the core assumptions of the Tippyverse, according to Tippy, is that it occurs in a world where no divine entities are interested in intervening to prevent it. In a setting where functionally omnipotent beings regularly meddle in mortal affairs, a Tippyverse will not necessarily arise, because there will often be deities with a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

Or you could have a setting like Eberron where the divine powers are mostly faiths and do not meddle with the affairs of the world.

On topic though, I think that Linear Fighter and Quadratic Wizard are good things provided the players are willing to have fun together instead of making it into an OP xanatos gambit game. I mean some posters here have had great games even with playing wizard only games and that's because we play with the inclusion of everyone's part instead of wizard>everything.

Some leeway is also given to martial classes but overall as long as the DM and players especially those who are full on casting classes decide not to go full OP then everyone has a great time.

[Barbarian Horde]

Doesn't the world building largely and how players interact largely rely on the DM? So does it really matter?

[LudicSavant]

I mean it. Yes, I acknowledge that Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards is unfair, paradigm-breaking, and a nightmare to balance. Linear Warriors/Linear Wizards dodges all of those problems while introducing no new ones. So why are we having this discussion at all?

To me, the biggest appeal of 3E D&D is that there was actual stuff for players to engage the setting with that didn't involve finding plot-device items or getting quests from the king. Again, it's completely unfair that only about a third of the 3E classes could actually do this, but a third is still better than zero (4E/5E). I distinctly remember getting the 4E D&D PHB (and again with the DMG2), getting excited at the possibility of a game that actually coded the experience of being anything other than a Bilbo-style questtaker what with the talk of paragon and epic tiers, and then being crushingly disappointed at how 25th-level 4E D&D plays, from a worldbuilding perspective, pretty much how it did at level 7.

Beyond that, though, the number of LWLW games completely and utterly swamp LWQW or QWQW for that matter. Game of Thrones and Conan the Barbarian settings are by nature simply easier to design. For every LWQW/QWQW TTRPG setting you care to name (Exalted), I can name five LWLW settings (GR's Dragon Age, GoT, 4E D&D, Torchbearer, Legend d20). We simply do not need to have another D&D game that envisions a Hero's Journey that's narratively indistinguishable from Elothar's (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Elothar_Warrior_of_Bladereach_(3.5e_Prestige_Class )).

Don't get me wrong. I strongly feel that 3E D&D's rejection of the typical LotR/Final Fantasy-derived character progression arc for casters was an accident. One of the most enduring complaints of mid and high-level APs is that they don't take into account the ability of casters. And settings and rulesets that derive from the 3E ruleset that care to acknowledge the balance problems (Legend d20, Pathfinder, even d20 Modern) always go for Linear Wizards instead of Quadratic Warriors. Nonetheless, I appreciate that a model that posits fantasy characters not simply doing the same things but with better numbers/special effects exists at all. And I'm very unhappy that 4E and 5E D&D went down the beaten path of 'screw it, wizards from now on are more like Harry Potter than Raistlin. Not only do they get balanced with the martials, but we can continue designing adventures that require them to journey across icy mountains and deal with mundane town guards'.

Personally, I'd prefer QWQW for my D&D over LWLW or LWQW. You get to have all of the fun of a setting that's not another interminable LotR clone and everyone gets to stay balanced with each other. Unfortunately, a lot of people (I'd go as far as to say the supermajority of D&D players), with some genre justification, think that a setup where fighters resemble F/SN Gilgamesh or Superman rather than Indiana Jones and Jaime Lannister is too anime. Or they don't like how scry-and-fry or bounded demon industries completely upend a lot of the basic tropes of GoT/LoTR-style fantasy but can accept it more if those things are in the hands of distant GMPC wizards rather than in player hands. So LWQW is an acceptable compromise.

I agree that there are a lot of Conan and Game of Thrones type games on display, and that I'd like to see more where you grow into crazy powers. However, I find the LWQW compromise unnecessary... even if you're looking to appeal to the crowd that thinks Superman fighters would be "too anime." Why? Because you don't need Superman. Even Link from the Legend of Zelda or Hawkeye from the Avengers (in his more potent forms from the comics) or Batman is a significant step up from the D&D fighter, and I don't think these characters are considered "too anime."

I'd like to shine some light on something that often goes unremarked upon: That there are a lot of ways to make warriors compete with so-called "quadratic wizards" (e.g. the ones that have big, satisfying, Tippyverse-creating powers) without actually making them throw kamehameha waves or lift mountains or whatever. In fact, throwing an energy blast isn't really any different from just having a Good Ranged Attack... it's unnecessary and overlooking some of the real problems.

There's a lot more going against the Fighter in D&D 3.5e than genre conventions or even the sheer scale of their powers. I'll try to enumerate a few of them...

1) Wizards are largely designed without consideration for the game design principle of counterplay, while fighters lack even the counterplay potential that we're told that they're supposed to have in art and lore. A Wall of Force just can't be broken without magic, no matter how strong or clever the fighty guy is. A shield can't deflect or even block a ray or breath weapon, even though it's in the art all the time. Stopping a guy from flying by upsetting their balance ranges from hard to impossible. Fireballs just hit their mark directly, without any deviation, with no aiming skill required. Basically, wizard mechanics just plain don't interact with nonwizards. Note that this isn't saying that the scale of wizard powers are too great and that they shouldn't have all their huge narrative-redefining abilities that the OP loves. You can totally keep all of that stuff while allowing magic mechanics to interact with mundane ones.

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75436.jpg
The feat that this art is supposedly depicting does not do what is happening in this picture!

Meanwhile, fighters are often incredibly easy to counter. They tend to have a very small array of tricks compared to someone like Hawkeye or Link, and their build tends to telegraph (from details like weapons, stance, armor, actions, etc). Any kind of monkey wrench thrown into their plans has a good chance of shutting them down completely... whether it's a rust monster destroying their favorite weapon or flying above a melee-only guy or casting wind wall against an archer or just fighting on uneven footing against a charger without enough skill points to spare for Balance. Fighters often get their trick foiled without the enemy even specifically trying (such as, again, rays just ignoring your shield by default).

2) Wizards are super fast in 3.5e, while fighters are super slow. A guy attacking with a sword 4 times in 6 seconds while standing still and doing nothing else is a modest pace achievable by a regular person, yet this unimpressive pace is what we're getting from level 16+ Fighty guys. By contrast, if you take all the stuff that a mid-high level 3.5e wizard accomplishes in 6 seconds, it makes Rita Mordio look slow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRP5JxITkI). They can move their speed, chat about tactics with their summoned minions, dodge around unhindered (casting defensively), dig specific spell components out of a crowded component pouch, speak an incantation, perform a series of elaborate somatic gestures so precise that armor would mess with your rhythm, aim, and fire... and that's the first of the 6 spells they're casting this round before anyone else can do anything. If you animated all of this at the pace it's actually supposed to be happening in-game, it'd look absurd. Moreover, everything happens immediately without any sort of telegraphing or opportunity to react (as opposed to fighters, who telegraph an awful lot).

Again, this isn't a thing that separates the world-changing wizards from the Elothars. You can build a Tippyverse in a minute as surely you can in a round. Indignation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtCiP8B2xpc) feels powerful and impactful even if it doesn't go off in an instant. Simply making fighters go fast makes up a surprising amount of ground.

3) Wizards can easily diversify their abilities... while Fighters have to continuously update one to keep it relevant. They have tremendous difficulty acquiring new tricks. Link from the Legend of Zelda probably doesn't count as "too anime," right? But if we wanted to represent Link as an RPG character, we'd expect him to have ranged attacks, bombs, speed boots, boomerang grabs, grapple mobility, shield reflects, powerful melee, and much more all in a level appropriate fashion... but martial characters in 3.5e (even Tome of Battle characters) just don't work like that. If they want to be relevant at something, they need to be dumping resources into it for their whole career. To make your sword attack relevant, you need to dump a huge amount of your WBL, feats, and so forth into giving your sword the appropriate numbers... you don't have stuff left over for a Batman tool belt or decent bow skills to knock out a flying target. By contrast, Wizards can just get Stinking Cloud one day and it immediately works in a level-appropriate fashion and gives them a whole new way to approach problems. Even their itemization encourages diversification: Buying wands and scrolls can get you spells that just work immediately, while the fighter can't even afford to get a second weapon enchanted to spec in his arsenal!

The Fighter is designed in such a way that he is always playing catch-up with the numbers for his old tricks, instead of gathering new ones. None of his stuff, be it his own personal abilities or his itemization, is plug'n'play like the Wizard's. When Link gets a new item, it's a tornado-generating boomerang or superspeed boots. When a Fighter gets a new item, it's just keeping his old trick up to date with another +1... while everything else fars farther and farther behind the curve.

____

Some final notes: Even though Rogues suffer all these crippling problems that Fighters do too, they almost get to keep up and stay relevant anyways, all while not coming off as "too anime." The gulf isn't quite as huge as it's made out to be (barring theoretical op nonsense and the like), and fixing these issues could go a long way to making fighters relevant without stepping into the realm of Superman.

Also, these problems can't be blamed on genre conventions. Incredible gear that only the martial hero can wield to its full potential is a staple of western fantasy, for instance... it would be easy to justify something like superspeed boots that work much better on a more athletic guy.

[Beheld]

speak an incantation elaborate enough that armor could mess with your breathing enough to frustrate it

This is wrong. Arcane Spel Failure from armor does not apply to verbal components.


Arcane Spell Failure
Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.

Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor
A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.

[VincentTakeda]

I prefer linear warriors/logarithmic wizards myself. My 7th level wizard should be able to mow down 10^7 7th level warriors in an afternoon or I just might not be able to bring myself to memorizing all these pesky spells in the first place. Besides. How else am I gonna spend all this gold?

Warriors do the jobs nobody else wants to do! If the gods wanted me killing rats he wouldnt have put them in the sewars. Come on. I'm creating jobs here. I'm a job creator.

[EldritchWeaver]

and that's the first of the 6 spells they're casting this round before anyone else can do anything.

How can you get 6 spells in a single round? We have one Quicken Spell and the normal standard action, unless you refer to tricks which allow infinite spells (saw yesterday a build, which allowed to cast as many L5 spells as you need). Twin Spell doesn't cut it, because that's just doubling the effect of single spell, not actually casting two (different) spells.

[OldTrees1]

I prefer linear warriors/logarithmic wizards myself.

F(X) = mX +b gets stronger faster than G(x) = a + b Logc X so I think you meant exponential wizards.



The Fighter is designed in such a way that he is always playing catch-up with the numbers for his old tricks, instead of gathering new ones. None of his stuff, be it his own personal abilities or his itemization, is plug'n'play like the Wizard's. When Link gets a new item, it's a tornado-generating boomerang or superspeed boots. When a Fighter gets a new item, it's just keeping his old trick up to date with another +1... while everything else fars farther and farther behind the curve.

Some final notes: Even though Rogues suffer all these crippling problems that Fighters do too, they almost get to keep up and stay relevant anyways, all while not coming off as "too anime." The gulf isn't quite as huge as it's made out to be (barring theoretical op nonsense and the like), and fixing these issues could go a long way to making fighters relevant without stepping into the realm of Superman.

I only wish to address this sub point of an otherwise spot on post.

Fighters and other Warriors in general are able to pick up new tricks provided they keep to only the worthwhile feats. Usually this means they need to play catch-up with 1 number that they then use to power the tricks they are acquiring. Power Attack -> Knockback & Staggering Strike for instance gives you 2 new abilities that are each kept up to date by by staying up to date for power attack. Strength -> Improved Trip & Three Mountain is another example where 2 new abilities are kept up to date by staying up to date with Strength. With the character resourced needed for playing catch-up reduced, other character resources can be used to pick up new abilities. There is still catch-up involved, so your main point is true, but lesser is not as low as you made it out to be on this particular issue.

[LudicSavant]

How can you get 6 spells in a single round? We have one Quicken Spell and the normal standard action, unless you refer to tricks which allow infinite spells (saw yesterday a build, which allowed to cast as many L5 spells as you need). Twin Spell doesn't cut it, because that's just doubling the effect of single spell, not actually casting two (different) spells.

Before you try anything funny, you've got Quick, Standard, and Immediate action (which uses up the swift action for the next round). Then you have things like Contingency, Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability, and so forth.


Arcane Spel Failure from armor does not apply to verbal components.

Right. Only somatic components. Fixed.


I only wish to address this sub point of an otherwise spot on post.

Fighters and other Warriors in general are able to pick up new tricks provided they keep to only the worthwhile feats. Usually this means they need to play catch-up with 1 number that they then use to power the tricks they are acquiring. Power Attack -> Knockback & Staggering Strike for instance gives you 2 new abilities that are each kept up to date by by staying up to date for power attack. Strength -> Improved Trip & Three Mountain is another example where 2 new abilities are kept up to date by staying up to date with Strength. With the character resourced needed for playing catch-up reduced, other character resources can be used to pick up new abilities. There is still catch-up involved, so your main point is true, but lesser is not as low as you made it out to be on this particular issue.

It seems like you agree with my point, so I'm not sure what the issue is here? Yes, fighters can pick up new tricks, but their ability to do so is far more limited than, say, a blaster Wizard deciding they want to start casting Stinking Cloud one day.

A fighter can pick up Improved Trip... but she doesn't just plug and play and stop worrying about it. She needs to make sure her trip check stays up to snuff, through stats, features, and items. She needs to make sure she can get in and use his trip on the enemy and survive. Even before she gets Improved Trip, she needs to get Combat Expertise and an unusual 13 Int, which might influence her effectiveness before she can even grab her Trip trick. Afters she gets Improved Trip, if it becomes an obsolete trick the opportunity cost of 2 feats and a 13 Int investment are keenly felt compared to the opportunity cost of adding an extra spell to a spellbook, so she's under at least some pressure to try and keep it updated.

There are a lot of points that need to come together for a Fighter to use a trick. She has to have the checks high enough. She needs the right stats. She needs her expensive, difficult-to-replace gear. She needs the prerequisites, which often are finicky about whether or not you planned your build ahead of time. And the higher level you are, the more difficult it is to spontaneously decide to pick up new tricks that are relevant right when you get them. She can't just decide one day she feels like an axe instead of a sword... the sword's too expensive to replace. Nevermind the implications of wanting to suddenly start using a bow competently when the situation calls for it.

[EldritchWeaver]

Before you try anything funny, you've got Quick, Standard, and Immediate action (which uses up the swift action for the next round). Then you have things like Contingency, Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability, and so forth.

Immediate actions aren't that common for spells and even if you can use that one, this results in 1 action less for the next round. Contingency is only a precast spell, which means you already have used an action in advance, so it doesn't count. The familiar uses its own actions, not the wizard's one, so it doesn't count. Not saying that it is impossible to get that many spells off in a single round, but if we require the actions to be used from the very round the spell goes off and that the actions use up the wizard's action pool, that seems to restrict the number of spells to 3 at most.

[OldTrees1]

It seems like you agree with my point, so I'm not sure what the issue is here? Yes, fighters can pick up new tricks, but their ability to do so is far more limited than, say, a blaster Wizard deciding they want to start casting Stinking Cloud one day.

A fighter can pick up Improved Trip... but she doesn't just plug and play and stop worrying about it.

Your main point I do agree with. I just think you are still underselling the Warrior since some of their tricks are effectively plug and play depending on their existing tricks. This still compares unfavorable with the independently plug and play spells that casters can pick up.

Improve Trip & Three Mountain are plug and play if the Warrior is already working on keeping Strength up to snuff for its own sake. My other example was how the maintenance that goes into keeping Power Attack viable (increasing attack bonus slightly faster than otherwise) translates into higher Bullrush for Knockback and higher DC for Staggering Strike. So rather than every trick needing to play catch up, with the good feats you can pick up new tricks that will keep up due to the maintenance you already are doing for your old tricks.

I bring this up in part to highlight that despite calling them Linear Warriors, they are not actually Linear and Linear vs Quadratic is not literally talking about Linear or Quadratic. (not that you needed that highlighted)

Now it this post of yours you also brought up a very good 4th point: Fraction of character resources required to pick up an effectively plug and play ability. Improved Trip is 2 feats(there is non Int substitute for CE)/Barb 2 + maintaining Strength for its own sake. Glitterdust is either 1 2nd level spell known, some ink, or even free.

[LudicSavant]

I just think you are still underselling the Warrior since some of their tricks are effectively plug and play depending on their existing tricks. This still compares unfavorable with the independently plug and play spells that casters can pick up.


Now it this post of yours you also brought up a very good 4th point: Fraction of character resources required to pick up an effectively plug and play ability. Improved Trip is 2 feats(there is non Int substitute for CE)/Barb 2 + maintaining Strength for its own sake. Glitterdust is either 1 2nd level spell known, some ink, or even free.

Yeah. It's not that fighters literally can't get new tricks, it's that it's generally harder. Not sure how I was underselling them, as that was what I was intending to communicate. Ah well.


I bring this up in part to highlight that despite calling them Linear Warriors, they are not actually Linear and Linear vs Quadratic is not literally talking about Linear or Quadratic. (not that you needed that highlighted) I agree. "Linear vs Quadratic" is at best an oversimplification of the problems in D&D's design.


Immediate actions aren't that common for spells and even if you can use that one, this results in 1 action less for the next round. Contingency is only a precast spell, which means you already have used an action in advance, so it doesn't count. The familiar uses its own actions, not the wizard's one, so it doesn't count. Not saying that it is impossible to get that many spells off in a single round, but if we require the actions to be used from the very round the spell goes off and that the actions use up the wizard's action pool, that seems to restrict the number of spells to 3 at most.

You seem to have some weird personal rules for what "doesn't count" as pulling off more spell effects in a round. To me, stuff like Twinned spells, Contingency, Imbued Familiars, Immediate spells (of which there are many, actually. Some which can totally shut down a fighter-type on their own, like Hesitate), Arcane Spell Fusion, Celerity tricks, Action Surge, War Weaver, Time Stop, Repeated Spell, Ocular Spell, Arcane Spellsurge, War Weaver, Polymorphing into nonsense, spell sharing, discharges, and all the other crazy stuff Wizards can do in order to create 6 or more spell effects in a round... counts.

Moreover, the point is moot. Even if you choose to believe that Wizards can only get 3 spell effects off in a round, that's still an example of wizards acting fast.

Rita Mordio is crazy fast when she's got her full speed kit. She casts about 3 spells in 6 seconds when she's going full on bla-bla-bla combo mode. She doesn't outrun a strong man in chainmail, dodge around (casting defensively), dig out specific spell components from a pouch full of a hundred of 'em, direct ongoing effects at targets, or command minions or familiars while she's doing this. That says something to me about just how quick wizards in D&D are without a single point in Dexterity or anything. A clumsy caster can still do all of that without breaking a sweat.

[EldritchWeaver]

You seem to have some weird personal rules for what "doesn't count" as pulling off more spell effects in a round. To me, stuff like Twinned spells, Contingency, Imbued Familiars, Immediate spells (of which there are many, actually. Some which can totally shut down a fighter-type on their own, like Hesitate), Arcane Spell Fusion, Celerity tricks, Action Surge, War Weaver, Time Stop, Repeated Spell, Ocular Spell, Arcane Spellsurge, War Weaver, Polymorphing into nonsense, spell sharing, discharges, and all the other crazy stuff Wizards can do in order to create 6 or more spell effects in a round... counts.

Moreover, the point is moot. Even if you choose to believe that Wizards can only get 3 spell effects off in a round, that's still an example of wizards acting fast.

Rita Mordio is crazy fast when she's got her full speed kit. She casts about 3 spells in 6 seconds when she's going full on bla-bla-bla combo mode. She doesn't outrun a strong man in chainmail, dodge around (casting defensively), dig out specific spell components from a pouch full of a hundred of 'em, direct ongoing effects at targets, or command minions or familiars while she's doing this. That says something to me about just how quick wizards in D&D are without a single point in Dexterity or anything. A clumsy caster can still do all of that without breaking a sweat.

I've insisted on the restrictions because you compared the number of actions of a fighter (namely how many hits he can dish out personally) to the ones of a wizard. Some of the ways open to a wizard don't correspond to actions undertaken by the wizard himself in that very round. Using the actions of a familiar would require that you would need to include a cohort for the fighter as well. A contingency is essentially cheating under these circumstances, because you stored an action for later use. I suppose it would have been clearer to me from the start, if you had said something like "The wizard has 3 actions to cast spells and in addition can use this and that, which the fighter can't do ever".

That being said, overall I agree with your statement.

[Arbane]

Improve Trip & Three Mountain are plug and play if the Warrior is already working on keeping Strength up to snuff for its own sake.

And you're up against opponents that aren't larger than you/have 4+ legs/fly....

One other thing is that Wizards just have so many more options - even just sticking to combat, they can hit opponents in their AC, touch AC, three different saves, mess with terrain, float away... While fighters... hit AC. And possibly trip or grapple things, if they've trained hard at it.

(D&D's rules seem to actively punish fighty-types for trying to do anything unexpected in combat.)

[OldTrees1]

And you're up against opponents that aren't larger than you/have 4+ legs/fly....
*Facepalm*
Larger -> See keeping Strength up to snuff
4+ legs -> See keeping Strength up to snuff
Fly -> Trip either already still works against the flyer or never will work against the flyer

How exactly were you addressing what I said?



One other thing is that Wizards just have so many more options - even just sticking to combat, they can hit opponents in their AC, touch AC, three different saves, mess with terrain, float away... While fighters... hit AC. And possibly trip or grapple things, if they've trained hard at it.

(D&D's rules seem to actively punish fighty-types for trying to do anything unexpected in combat.)

^this is completely irrelevant to my post so I will presume it was not address to me

[dascarletm]

I'd rather they both be linear. You can have the same endpoint of power, but achieve it gradually than it ramping up. For example if "power level 100" is the strongest the game can achieve then I'd rather characters start at power level 5, and have that power increased by 5 each level, than ramping up quadratically.

[OldTrees1]

I'd rather they both be linear. You can have the same endpoint of power, but achieve it gradually than it ramping up. For example if "power level 100" is the strongest the game can achieve then I'd rather characters start at power level 5, and have that power increased by 5 each level, than ramping up quadratically.

Hm. Wouldn't that mean that you would have only your starting number of tricks (albeit at a higher strength)?

If we have a linear addition of tricks and a linear power cap (as a function of level) per trick then we would have quadratic growth.

However if those skills synergize with each other then combined they are greater than the sum of their parts. Depending on the synergy designed this could be anywhere from cubic or higher.

Personally I like to aim for cubic. Every ability can increase towards a linear power cap, the abilities available increase with an even feature value/level density, and some combinations of abilities synergize. (Ex: Combat Reflexes + Knockback)

[dascarletm]

Hm. Wouldn't that mean that you would have only your starting number of tricks (albeit at a higher strength)?

If we have a linear addition of tricks and a linear power cap (as a function of level) per trick then we would have quadratic growth.

However if those skills synergize with each other then combined they are greater than the sum of their parts. Depending on the synergy designed this could be anywhere from cubic or higher.

Personally I like to aim for cubic. Every ability can increase towards a linear power cap, the abilities available increase with an even feature value/level density, and some combinations of abilities synergize. (Ex: Combat Reflexes + Knockback)


It could still be linear, it just depends on the rate of growth and addition of tricks. If your system for example gives you X points to spend on abilities, and you are allowed to gain new abilities or expand your current abilities you would be linear if X increases linearly.

I'm not sure this is the best, but I wouldn't mind such a system.

[OldTrees1]

It could still be linear, it just depends on the rate of growth and addition of tricks. If your system for example gives you X points to spend on abilities, and you are allowed to gain new abilities or expand your current abilities you would be linear if X increases linearly.

I'm not sure this is the best, but I wouldn't mind such a system.

Do I do the action of Strength 2X or one of the 2 actions of strength X? For a large enough X this choice would be problematic.
Do I do the action of Strength 2X or both actions of strength X? This formulation avoids the first problem. However you end up with an apparent versatility imbalance that might be undesirable. Furthermore you would need to make sure abilities did not synergize (otherwise 2*X>>1*2X)
.
Eh. That was the best I could do to criticize such a system. There are problems there, but I can see enjoyable results. I think the clincher for me is that I like synergy and keeping to a linear curve rejects synergy.

[digiman619]

I find it hilarious that half this thread isn't "discussing the virtues of various power levels in a D&D game", but "What is the proper mathematical way to describe such variations of power".

[OldTrees1]

I find it hilarious that half this thread isn't "discussing the virtues of various power levels in a D&D game", but "What is the proper mathematical way to describe such variations of power".

It is funny how such things occur.

Partially it is because the order of the curve does little to talk about the actual power level (I can make an F(x)=ex2 wizard weaker than 4th level spells).

The other part is because the mechanical texture of different curves can be seen by comparing parts of the same curve to each other. This is why we know that Wizards are not Quadratic and that Linear vs Quadratic is talking about having 2 different orders in the same game rather than literally talking about having Linear and Quadratic in the same game.

Which then brings up how small/large a range of orders are good to include in the same game from a game design perspective. Could a Fighter that gained feats every 2nd level (quadratic) and a Fighter that gained feats 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, & 16th level (XlogX) work in the same game?

[squiggit]

I always assumed "linear vs quadratic" was just a way of noting the fact that fighters have one trick they get better with over time while wizards not only get better at their tricks but also get more tricks over time as well.

[OldTrees1]

I always assumed "linear vs quadratic" was just a way of noting the fact that fighters have one trick they get better with over time while wizards not only get better at their tricks but also get more tricks over time as well.

It was the intersection of a few different usages all describing differences. That was one of them. However it grew to mean the sum of all the meanings before it was pointed out that fighters also get more tricks that get better over time and wizards get just so many many more than that.

Basically back then fighter was stereotyped as "just full attack for damage" (which is not literally linear but close enough) to which they compared:
Pick 2: Wizards get higher level spells, Each spell scales with caster level, Wizards get more spells per day of each spell level, Wizards get more spells known, ... etc

[icefractal]

I'd rather they both be linear. You can have the same endpoint of power, but achieve it gradually than it ramping up. For example if "power level 100" is the strongest the game can achieve then I'd rather characters start at power level 5, and have that power increased by 5 each level, than ramping up quadratically.The issue with that, IMO, is that it makes levels less exciting the higher up you go. In a truly linear system, going from 2nd to 3rd level is huge, but going from 19th to 20th is ... a 5% change, at most? Yawn.

It also means that at the start, a level difference is a big deal - if you're 1st level and a 3rd level foe shows up, better just run or surrender. But at the upper end, it's the reverse - a given 16th level character might be better than a 20th level one. Which doesn't seem a desirable effect either.

Exponential doesn't have to mean super-fast, for that matter. A system where x2 = +4 would have a much flatter power curve than 3E, while still maintaining a consistent relationship between level X and X+1.

[Beheld]

Yeah the thing about advocating a linear growth, is you are arguing that if you have a level 1 character, a level 2 character, and a level 20 character, there exists enemies that you fight one of at level 1, 2X at level 10, and 20X at level 20.

I don't know about you, but I really want to be facing about 6 million of the enemies I fought singly at level 1 and still be sure I'm going to come out on top. And if you are committed to that being a linear system, that means you need to be able to beat about 300,000 at level 2. Seems like non ideal scaling to me.

[Arbane]

*Facepalm*
Larger -> See keeping Strength up to snuff
4+ legs -> See keeping Strength up to snuff
Fly -> Trip either already still works against the flyer or never will work against the flyer

How exactly were you addressing what I said?

My point, in as much as I HAD one, is that the fighter has to sink a LOT of opportunity cost into one schtick, which can be pretty easily obviated.
Meanwhile, the wizard spreads their spells out to be ready for anything.

(And there IS an upper limit on how much you can pump Strength, right?)

[dascarletm]

I suppose you all have good points. Power should probably ramp up at higher levels for a game like DnD, not appropriate for all systems, E6 for example removes power ramp-up past 6th lvl.

[OldTrees1]

My point, in as much as I HAD one, is that the fighter has to sink a LOT of opportunity cost into one schtick, which can be pretty easily obviated.
Meanwhile, the wizard spreads their spells out to be ready for anything.

(And there IS an upper limit on how much you can pump Strength, right?)

Ah.
My point is that once you are investing sufficiently into one schtick (say Strength for its own sake) then some other schticks (say Trip & Three Mountain) become effectively plug and play (aka pay the initial cost and they will scale with the investment in the 1st schtick). So not only are fighters not stuck with only 1 schtick but their investments playing catchup with some of their schticks can make them not need to play catch up with others.


However, the wizard spreads their spells out to be ready for anything for a vanishingly small investment cost.

[Extra Anchovies]

I'd rather they both be linear. You can have the same endpoint of power, but achieve it gradually than it ramping up. For example if "power level 100" is the strongest the game can achieve then I'd rather characters start at power level 5, and have that power increased by 5 each level, than ramping up quadratically.

Hm. I'm on the other side of the coin, then - I'd rather a class get just a touch more power from 19 to 20 than it did from 18 to 19, which in turn was more than from 17 to 18, and so on. The Magus, I think, is a good example of this. They have a number of linear-scaling class features (BAB/HD/saves, Arcane Pool, Magus Arcana, bonus feats), and they get an average of 5/3 spell slots per level in a fairly linear progression (2-1-2-2-1-2-2-1-2). However, as they advance in level those new spell slots are more powerful than the old slots - at 14th level they get new slots at 4th and 5th level, which is better than the single 5th-level slot at 13th or the 4th and 2nd-level slots at 12th. The Magus has a number of linear elements, and one slow-ish quadratic element, so its power curve (measured in some arbitrary unit) might look something like y=¼(x1.5)+4x, as shown (in blue) against y=4x (in red) here:

http://i.imgur.com/j7z9Ctv.png

At 20, the Magus is a definite cut above a class with similar linear elements but no quadratic growth (Fighter?). A better linear class (Slayer? uRogue?) with growth of y=5x would end up just below the Magus at the higher levels, but would have a slight edge in the early-mid levels, like so (Magus in blue, Slayer in red):

http://i.imgur.com/GCaccXL.png

Linear and quadratic classes can definitely exist in the same design space while maintaining effective class balance, but it requires careful attention paid to the classes' relative strengths and niches. I suppose which type is better to play is a matter of taste.


I always assumed "linear vs quadratic" was just a way of noting the fact that fighters have one trick they get better with over time while wizards not only get better at their tricks but also get more tricks over time as well.

This is another good way of comparing the two. As a fighter increases in level, they get better at the things that they do, most of which is "hitting stuff". As a wizard increases in level, they get better at the things that they do (burning hands is replaced by scorching ray, grease is replaced by glitterdust, etc), and the list of things that they do gets larger because the spells that are replaced by higher-level equivalents are now open slots for other effects (knock, rope trick, etc).

[OldTrees1]

-snip some really nice graphs-

Linear and quadratic classes can definitely exist in the same design space while maintaining effective class balance, but it requires careful attention paid to the classes' relative strengths and niches. I suppose which type is better to play is a matter of taste.

1) Really nice graphs!
2) :smallredface: I am embarrassed I forgot this ^.

[Fizban]

On the problem of martials not being able to suddenly learn a new level-appropriate trick, ToB almost gets there. The catch is that you do need some amount of prerequisite maneuvers: you can suddenly learn a new trick only if it's from the same school, but each school does have a few tricks. You can also bank those prerequisites way back at level one, but it doesn't change the fact that you need to meet them when casters get spells without prerequisites.

Which brings us back to quick fixes: requiring a caster to have an unbroken chain of similar spells known all the way up to whatever new spell they want reduces the sudden new trick advantage, and you can apply the same requirement to item activation. There's also the classic "one spell per round, period."

It's really quite easy to identify the core problems that are annoying you (which can even vary depending on game) and then use simple rule changes to fix them, but some people just can't fathom it. Cosi mentioned early on in the other thread how it'd be just fine if warriors beat golems beat wizards beat warriors, and it's not hard at all to make that happen: just say that golem magic immunity is actual magic immunity, ignoring anything that would contradict the simple fix. Now fighting a golem with magic is way harder, and the spotlight shifts to the one guy who has the innate proficiency to wield your only adamantine weapon.

But all of that is predicated on a system that actually has interesting stuff in the first place, so yes, it's perfectly fine for the game to have spellcasters and martials on completely different tracks. Most people aren't great at creating things, so a robust system that needs a few fixes is infinitely better than a bland one, especially when someone with no skill tries to spice it up.

[Tuvarkz]

But all of that is predicated on a system that actually has interesting stuff in the first place, so yes, it's perfectly fine for the game to have spellcasters and martials on completely different tracks. Most people aren't great at creating things, so a robust system that needs a few fixes is infinitely better than a bland one, especially when someone with no skill tries to spice it up.

Except that is not just a 'few things' that 3.X needs fixed up. Besides caster/martial disparity there's also the wide berth of trap options out there, amongst other stuff.
You don't need to kill flavor to balance the system. Eg a Pathfinder game with 6/9 casters and a few 9/9 spontaneous (voiding the T1 options) plus full initiators, psionics (again, voiding T1 options) and spherecasters will have quite the large array of options; mostly take care of the LW/QW issue and avoid being bland.

[CharonsHelper]

I'd be more okay with linear warriors & quadratic wizards if that was only their raw power, and the wizard's power came with drawbacks.

Ex: I think that nearly all spells should be at least full round actions to cast, with higher level spells taking multiple rounds to cast. It could even be a new stat for spells. Spell X & Y are both 5th level combat spells. Spell Y is indisputably more powerful, but it takes 3 rounds to cast, while spell X is pretty weak for a 5th level spell, but it only take 1 full round action to cast.

Long-term buffing should also probably be limited/removed.

These together would make casters reliant upon martials for protection while they bring out the big guns, but it would retain their raw power, and the two would still have as much or more asymmetry.

[icefractal]

You can certainly go with a highly asymmetrical approach (Wizards rule non-combat activity, but their spells kind of suck in combat, Fighters rule there, for example). However, it has some issues:
* Balance is heavily dependent on campaign style - a dungeon crawl, exploration by sea, and a political game within a single city are going to have different ratios of combat/non-combat, for example.
* It's unclear where other types of classes would fit in this pattern, especially hybrid ones.
* It locks type of gameplay to specific flavor, which is going to screw with some concepts.

[ryu]

I'd be more okay with linear warriors & quadratic wizards if that was only their raw power, and the wizard's power came with drawbacks.

Ex: I think that nearly all spells should be at least full round actions to cast, with higher level spells taking multiple rounds to cast. It could even be a new stat for spells. Spell X & Y are both 5th level combat spells. Spell Y is indisputably more powerful, but it takes 3 rounds to cast, while spell X is pretty weak for a 5th level spell, but it only take 1 full round action to cast.

Long-term buffing should also probably be limited/removed.

These together would make casters reliant upon martials for protection while they bring out the big guns, but it would retain their raw power, and the two would still have as much or more asymmetry.

Alternative plan. Nuke the enemy from far enough away that it doesn't matter how long it takes to cast. Alternatively make the fighter cry into a bowl of onions with spells that would still be cast if they took literally days.

[CharonsHelper]

You can certainly go with a highly asymmetrical approach (Wizards rule non-combat activity, but their spells kind of suck in combat, Fighters rule there, for example). However, it has some issues:


I don't think requiring 2-3 rounds necessarily makes them useless in combat. Doing that would be well worth it for Summon Monster 5 or Dominate Person.

I agree that it couldn't be simply patched onto the 3.x system. It would have to be a core design pillar from the ground up on a new system, but it would still allow for wizards with a similar raw power while martials would remain a useful part of the group.

[dascarletm]

I don't think requiring 2-3 rounds necessarily makes them useless in combat. Doing that would be well worth it for Summon Monster 5 or Dominate Person.

Long casting times is more a problem of bad game design. If you have your players waiting on their turn not able to do anything, that is boring.

[CharonsHelper]

Long casting times is more a problem of bad game design. If you have your players waiting on their turn not able to do anything, that is boring.

It depends upon the system. As I said, it shouldn't just be slapped onto current 3.x.

For example, it might not take their entire turn, but (in D&D terms) just their standard action for 2-3 turns. They would still be able to back away, run to cover etc. to avoid being pinned down or having their concentration broken. (especially if the silly 5ft steps out of melee were removed)

[ryu]

Long casting times is more a problem of bad game design. If you have your players waiting on their turn not able to do anything, that is boring.

This is why I advocate buffing on all weak fronts, ideally with no nerfs at all. Make everyone terrifying and constant threats. Make combat one of the most gloriously high-ceiling games of murder chess there is.

[dascarletm]

It depends upon the system. As I said, it shouldn't just be slapped onto current 3.x.

For example, it might not take their entire turn, but (in D&D terms) just their standard action for 2-3 turns. They would still be able to back away, run to cover etc. to avoid being pinned down or having their concentration broken. (especially if the silly 5ft steps out of melee were removed)
You are still forcing the player in this system to not be able to take positive action for 2 to 3 turns. That's not good.

[CharonsHelper]

You are still forcing the player in this system to not be able to take positive action for 2 to 3 turns. That's not good.

How is that different from attacks which stun them for 1-2 rounds? (Besides being active and the player's choice.) Should those all be banned from use against PCs? (And making it take 2-3 rounds is only 1-2 rounds more than any other system.)

[dascarletm]

How is that different from attacks which stun them for 1-2 rounds? (Besides being active and the player's choice.) Should those all be banned from use against PCs? (And making it take 2-3 rounds is only 1-2 rounds more than any other system.)

This is about video game design but the basic principles still apply. (http://www.delmarlearning.com/companions/content/1592004342/chappreview/04342_BegGameLevelChapter1.pdf)

We could get into a very long discussion about the merits/detriments of forcing players to do nothing, but I'd rather let the thread die. See above for more information.

EDIT:

Short answer that system isn't engaging, and stuns are rare/not fun in general. I wouldn't strive to develop something that is slightly more fun than being stunned.

[CharonsHelper]

Short answer that system isn't engaging, and stuns are rare/not fun in general. I wouldn't strive to develop something that is slightly more fun than being stunned.

Powering up is hardly comparable to being stunned at all. You might not be unleashing anything this turn, but you and everyone else know that next turn they're going to be getting a piece of your magic! And if you are having to play defensive to avoid your spell being disrupted, you are still engaged in the combat.

It's not exactly a revolutionary concept either. Many game systems do the same or similar. An edition or two of Exalted basically did so with their 'ticks'. (though it was built rather clunky)

So - no stuns. No counter-spelling allowed. No disarming or tripping. (just standing up isn't much of a turn) No retreating out of attack range. No...

[LudicSavant]

Ideas off the top of my head for powerful things that hypothetical martial classes could do without baiting the dreaded cries of "too animu," which are more useful for moving them up the tiers than kamehameha waves anyways.

- Big damn initiative bonuses. Going first is super important at all levels, and there's nothing "animu" about it. You could even have an ability that you hand out to mundane classes (Barbarians, Rogues, Fighters, etc) like "Automatically win initiative. If other people in this combat have this ability, you guys roll initiative normally as tiebreakers. Everyone else is after you guys."

- Always ready for battle. Always act during surprise rounds. Never be flat-footed. That sort of thing.

- Have diverse fighting styles. Be good with a sword *and* a bow *and* a hookshot *and* grenadelike weapons *and* a hammer *and...* you get the idea.

- Deflect rays with shields, re-aiming them at whatever new target they wish, and using your own, probably better attack bonus while doing it. Maybe even apply your attack feats and @#$% to augment it. Hell, Captain America has been doing this and more with his shield for years.

- Extend their threatened area. A better fighter can threaten more space with the same weapon and size.

- Attribute bonuses. Get more strength, dexterity, charisma, intelligence, whatever. The warrior keeps training her mind and body rigorously over the course of her career. There's nothing "animu" about having more attribute points to spread around.

- Block line of effect with shields, such as blocking the cone of a dragon's breath. This happens in fantasy art of knights vs dragons like *all the @#$%ing time.* You could even level this up to a point where they can block line of effect for any square or squares they can threaten with a shield bash (combining with the previous ability).

- Play basketball defense like a real man. If a guy moves, you can move to intercept his movement.

- AoO a guy who's casting defensively. You're not the martial expert with no openings in your stance here, wizard!

- Getting more actions in general. Action economy lube as a fighter class feature. Make these guys fast. If frail old Wizards get to move like Rita Mordio or end-of-series Aang, more physically able people should be able to move fast too.

- Use maneuvers with attack actions, rather than standard actions. Including attacks of opportunity.

- Tanking abilities that penalize enemies severely for not attacking you. For example, Guild Wars 1 had a Warrior stance (Frenzy) that people would toggle on whenever they weren't being attacked that significantly increased their damage and action speed, but made them take like double damage until they turned it off.... which they could do instantly (so they wouldn't actually take much damage if the enemy turned on them... they just wouldn't turn it on if they were in the middle of being attacked). The RPG equivalent would be something like, say, a stance that you can turn off (but not on) as a free action outside your turn. So, enemies would have to pressure you to stop you from smashing things.

- You know how the devs answered the question about why fighters get so few attacks by saying how an attack action isn't really just one swing of a sword, and how it assumes some swordplay and such being involved? Well, if that's the case, why not make one swing with a sword a faster action? Make attacking a defenseless object a swift action or something. Now you can kick barrels down the stairs, cut a rope bridge, stab an unconscious guy, or whatever and still have your main action.

- Make an attack with any weapon or unarmed in a way that's basically up to par with attack/damage/whatever standards for that level.

- Extreme accuracy. I mean like "never miss" accuracy. Any of Hawkeye's crazy feats can happen without people calling you "too animu."

- Another Hawkeye idea. Hawkeye's combat instincts are so well-tuned that if he wouldn't hit the shot, he doesn't take the shot. You get to roll an attack roll, and if it would fail, you don't take the action and can instead use it for any non-attack action (such as quaffing a potion or double-moving to get to a better position or something). Another example of how a fighter can have "action economy lube" powers.

- A sniper automatically critting if he aims long enough.

- Extreme damage/death effects as a result of attacks.

- A bevy of status effects attached to attacks. You can hand it out like candy. Ability damage. Bleeding. Blindness. Disabling limbs. Nausea... or crippling pain that limits your actions like Nauseated. Fear. Entangle. Pinning someone to a wall with a javelin. Knockdown. Knockback. Threat gambits (like "if you do X you will get an attack of opportunity." The Mesmer in Guild Wars was built all around threat gambits).

- Be able to trip up fliers into crashing by hitting them with attacks. Make you think twice about flying if you're threatened with falling damage.

- Leadership stuff. For example, an inspiring knight could encourage his fellows, giving all who can hear him a second chance at a save against ongoing effects (like the spell Mass Resurgence without the limitations). Heck, they could do it as a swift action. Or a free action that they can use while they have a stance or aura active. Whatever.

- Check consistency / odds-controlling abilities. Rerolls. Taking 10 under pressure. Automatically roll a natural 20, like the spell Surge of Fortune. That sort of thing.

- Take advantage of the terrain. Improved movement in adverse conditions such as cramped spaces, difficult terrain, or bad weather. Deal extra damage or daze people or something if you knock them into a wall. Stuff like that.

- Moving and fighting at the same time. None of this "you have to stand still to full attack" stuff. I don't even want pounce. I want to do part of my move, hit a guy, move some more, hit another guy, and so forth.

- Lots of skills. Who gave you the idea that warriors don't have skills? Social skills. Athletic skills. Dungeoneering skills. Spot/Listen. Balance. Handle Animal giant monster minions. Heck, give them Spellcraft. I'm serious. What's the Spellcraft skill without the ability to cast spells as a class feature? Well, it's certainly not the ability to cast spells! It's the ability to know your enemy, and say "Watch out, that guy's casting a fireball!" This is exactly the kind of stuff you'd expect a hardened veteran of high fantasy warfare to recognize. Link clearly has UMD, and nobody's calling him "too animu."

- The intuition of a hardened veteran. Divination-like danger senses. Yomi. Speaking of giving them spellcraft-recognition skills, you could totally have something like them detecting magic in an area (or an incoming scry and die attempt) by the way their hairs are raising on the back of their neck (which totally has precedent in classic fantasy stories). Notice subtle changes in the environment to notice the movement of an invisible creature. Locate secret doors by feeling a draft. Shout *get down!* and leap to defend an ally as a sniper takes aim. This can scale up quite a bit. Seriously, the 9th level spell Foresight? That could totally be a mundane ability that's on all the time instead of 10 min/level, and it would totally be in line with many of the badass fighter archetypes we see in media that has nothing to do with flying, kamehameha slinging supermen.

- Also, speaking of Handle Animal, how about having abilities that can enhance it? Imagine pointing at a giant monster, declaring "I'm gonna ride it," then doing so... and being able to tame it if you can hold on long enough? Get yourself some sick Animal Companions / Special Mounts. cavaliers riding teleporting demonic T-Rexes and such.

- Throw a javelin like you're Thorkell the Tall. The range increments for thrown weapons shouldn't be the same for everyone. Also thrown weapons shouldn't completely suck.

- Spell resistance. Maybe you build up an immunity after tanking the stuff so much. It works for poison.

- Poise. Turn severe status effects into less severe ones, or negate them. "Stunned" might become "Unbalanced." Ongoing effects last less rounds. Fearlessness. That sort of thing.

- Break walls of force by hitting them just right. Maybe no amount of distributed force can break them, but they have pressure points or something. Any number of explanations could justify the ability for a mundane person to actually interact with a Wall of Force while still letting it block a landslide.

- Being hard to hit or hurt, and ways to pass the protection on to his allies. Attacks of opportunity and immediate maneuvers that counter and foil actions. Saves and save-improving abilities, like "reroll natural 1s" (like the Pride domain ability). Evasion. Mettle. Granting *allies* Mettle by being inspiring, or Evasion by using your tactical acumen to warn them to hit the dirt.

- Having lots of immediate action counter moves, including ranged ones (something Tome of Battle is mostly lacking).

- Use magic weapons and tools better than other people. The hammer that creates earthquakes whenever it strikes the ground only works if you can get a strong enough base wallop for it to work with. The soul carver only brainwashes people if you can stab 'em just the right way. Uther Doul's Possible Sword from The Scar only works if you're good enough that you could never conceivably fumble a blade, because every possible swing happens at the same time. The Master Sword cleaves through enemies with area-effect beams whose strength is based on your own melee attack. The faerie lances only let you teleport as far as you can toss a javelin that passes through walls. A hookshot is way better if you can hit your mark with it, better still if you can impale someone with it and whip them around the map into walls and @#$%. And so on and so forth. Itemization advantages can go a long way towards making Link into a real threat to Elminster. It's just that itemization options for mundanes in D&D tend to be straight up worse than the itemization options for mages.

- Have more long-term magic buffs on him at the same time than other people. Think something like potion toxicity in The Witcher 1, where having too much alchemical energy running through your veins could have some nasty side effects. Perhaps the tougher guy can hold more than just his liquor better than the flimsy old man mage. Sure, the Fighter may not be able to brew the potions or cast the spells himself, but that's not a big deal. The Fighter wins at being relevant if a party of Fighter+Wizard is better than a party of 2 wizards. This ain't a dueling game. Synergies count.

So... yeah, this seems doable to me. You can scale Link up instead of having Goku.

[Deathtongue]

I find it hilarious that half this thread isn't "discussing the virtues of various power levels in a D&D game", but "What is the proper mathematical way to describe such variations of power".The thing I find most illuminating about the latter half of the discussion, even when people here try to imagine what a Quadratic Warrior does, they basically imagine the archetype doing the same thing they always did but more efficiently.

The thing is, even if you made a level 20 Warblade being able to use literally any of the printed manuevers in the Bo9S at-will at no slower than a swift action (a proposal a lot more radical and overpowering than practically anything I've seen proposed), they'd still be at the relative mercy of the plot as much as a level 9 fighter. Oh, sure, they could turn monsters into chunky salsa just by looking at them funny but if the adventure called for a magical castle to be built in a year to fulfill a prophecy or for the character to travel to hidden undersea locations across the world to destroy the Aboleth God's source of power, they still only have two options: give the DM puppy-dog eyes until they drop plot devices in their lap or beg a PC spellcaster for help.

Superkilling a monster, even a major deity, only gets you so far when it comes to solving plot problems. Even if your Warblade or Fighter or Bloodrager could kill the Lady of Pain AND Pun-Pun by flexing his pinky finger, so what? That still doesn't do much to, say, raise the standard of living in Sigil or stop the soul trade. Not unless the DM carefully tailors event flags so that somehow killing those guys releases a burst of power that makes all good aligned people gain five levels or something like that.

[LudicSavant]

(a proposal a lot more radical and overpowering than practically anything I've seen proposed), they'd still be at the relative mercy of the plot as much as a level 9 fighter. Oh, sure, they could turn monsters into chunky salsa just by looking at them funny but if the adventure called for a magical castle to be built in a year to fulfill a prophecy or for the character to travel to hidden undersea locations across the world to destroy the Aboleth God's source of power, they still only have two options: give the DM puppy-dog eyes until they drop plot devices in their lap or beg a PC spellcaster for help. Funny, I had proposals in this very thread that gave them other options than that to approach those challenges. Several that could solve exactly these challenges are in the post immediately above yours.

[Liquor Box]

I always thought of the linearness or quadraticness of character classes to be only relative to one another anyway.

I suppose since those terms refer to character progression through the levels, they are actually referring to a character's high level power vs his low level power. But I always understood the thrust of the point to be that spellcasters are much more powerful than most non-spell casters at high level.

[Beheld]

Superkilling a monster, even a major deity, only gets you so far when it comes to solving plot problems. Even if your Warblade or Fighter or Bloodrager could kill the Lady of Pain AND Pun-Pun by flexing his pinky finger, so what? That still doesn't do much to, say, raise the standard of living in Sigil or stop the soul trade. Not unless the DM carefully tailors event flags so that somehow killing those guys releases a burst of power that makes all good aligned people gain five levels or something like that.

Part of the problem is that the touchstone is the "Fighter" class. So while people can come up with all sorts of crazy things high level characters can do, absolutely none of them are part of the Fighter concept, because the Fighter Concept is terrible.

[Liquor Box]

The thing is, even if you made a level 20 Warblade being able to use literally any of the printed manuevers in the Bo9S at-will at no slower than a swift action (a proposal a lot more radical and overpowering than practically anything I've seen proposed), they'd still be at the relative mercy of the plot as much as a level 9 fighter. Oh, sure, they could turn monsters into chunky salsa just by looking at them funny but if the adventure called for a magical castle to be built in a year to fulfill a prophecy or for the character to travel to hidden undersea locations across the world to destroy the Aboleth God's source of power, they still only have two options: give the DM puppy-dog eyes until they drop plot devices in their lap or beg a PC spellcaster for help.


Is using intimidate, their class skill, to compel others (workers or casters) to assist them not an option?

Edit: Or diplomacy

[ryu]

Is using intimidate, their class skill, to compel others (workers or casters) to assist them not an option?

Edit: Or diplomacy

The most common response to either of those things is either to be a PC or, considering diplomacy used the way it works by raw is brainwashing, kill anyone who tries ON SIGHT. Why on sight? Someone you tried it on lived to report. Now the government has a bounty on you.

[Liquor Box]

The most common response to either of those things is either to be a PC or, considering diplomacy used the way it works by raw is brainwashing, kill anyone who tries ON SIGHT. Why on sight? Someone you tried it on lived to report. Now the government has a bounty on you.

As far as I understand you, nothing you said would prevent a warblade from using those class skills in the scenarios Deathtongue proposed.

[ryu]

As far as I understand you, nothing you said would prevent a warblade from using those class skills in the scenarios Deathtongue proposed.

If the warblade is the PC that prevents half the issue. What do you do when your brainwash victim temporarily self-deafens before attempting to murder you? That is literally the most common response to such things in every campaign I've played in.

[Beheld]

Why on earth are you going to hunt through the universe for a level 17 Wizard in order to ask him to pretty please build a castle in the sky for you, when there is a level 17 Wizard right next to you?

The ability to maybe possibly ask someone else to do something for you is a completely useless ability when the issue is that one PC feels like the important one that does everything and the other feels like he might as well not exist, and everything would be exactly the same.

[Liquor Box]

If the warblade is the PC that prevents half the issue. What do you do when your brainwash victim temporarily self-deafens before attempting to murder you? That is literally the most common response to such things in every campaign I've played in.
Well, the warblade must have been the pc in the scenario proposed, because the suggested weakness was an inability to advance the plot. But the warblade need not be the PC, he just needs to not target the PCs.

I the warblade has persuaded someone to do something through diplomacy, I can't see why they would self deafen - it's not a magical effect to be avoided. You can liken it to brainwashing, but the result is that the 'victim' wants to carry out the task on the basis of the honeyed words. Likewise, I don't think it is realistic for an intimidated person to self deafen to avoid further intimidation, largely because he would be too intimidated to do so.

But if that did occur, what would happen would probably be somewhat similar to if a creature dominated (or summoned against their will etc) by a wizard escaped control. Avoiding it, or killing (in self defence, if your objection is the authorities) it would be pretty ordinary responses.

[Liquor Box]

Why on earth are you going to hunt through the universe for a level 17 Wizard in order to ask him to pretty please build a castle in the sky for you, when there is a level 17 Wizard right next to you?

The ability to maybe possibly ask someone else to do something for you is a completely useless ability when the issue is that one PC feels like the important one that does everything and the other feels like he might as well not exist, and everything would be exactly the same.

You are not asking, you are compelling using your class skills. No different from a wizard summoning or dominating a person or creature to do something for him.

I don't think you consider the wizard's "ability to maybe possibly ask someone else to do something for you" using summons or other spells "a completely useless ability" when another PC could do the same thing.

[ryu]

Well, the warblade must have been the pc in the scenario proposed, because the suggested weakness was an inability to advance the plot. But the warblade need not be the PC, he just needs to not target the PCs.

I the warblade has persuaded someone to do something through diplomacy, I can't see why they would self deafen - it's not a magical effect to be avoided. You can liken it to brainwashing, but the result is that the 'victim' wants to carry out the task on the basis of the honeyed words. Likewise, I don't think it is realistic for an intimidated person to self deafen to avoid further intimidation, largely because he would be too intimidated to do so.

But if that did occur, what would happen would probably be somewhat similar to if a creature dominated (or summoned against their will etc) by a wizard escaped control. Avoiding it, or killing (in self defence, if your objection is the authorities) it would be pretty ordinary responses.

The problem with that idea and diplomacy is that it's not a standard action. You start your minute long diplomacy attempt, then either get murdered or teleported away from depending on the relative power of the victim. If you want to optimize to the point you can reliably do it in a standard the response is a contingent defeaning spell triggered by people attempting to diplomacy you.

Intimidate is fear based, and thus vulnerable to so many things it's hilarious. If you want to talk about the ''realism'' of intimidation being responded to with attempted murder... You do realize the level 17 caster has no reason to fear you right? Or that even if they did the most sensible thing would be to teleport away?

[Big Fau]

You are not asking, you are compelling using your class skills. No different from a wizard summoning or dominating a person or creature to do something for him.

I don't think you consider the wizard's "ability to maybe possibly ask someone else to do something for you" using summons or other spells "a completely useless ability" when another PC could do the same thing.

The problem with making something skill or feat based is that anyone can use it via optimizing their skill checks or just taking the feat. Unless the restrictions are class-based, there's not much of a point to such things.

The Fighter has Intimidate class features (well, one ACF), but it's still based on something that a lot of things become immune to VERY early on (fear immunity is common).

[Beheld]

You are not asking, you are compelling using your class skills. No different from a wizard summoning or dominating a person or creature to do something for him.

I don't think you consider the wizard's "ability to maybe possibly ask someone else to do something for you" using summons or other spells "a completely useless ability" when another PC could do the same thing.

Nope, you are totally asking. That's pretty apparent from the rules. The Diplomacy rules don't all your to tell other people what to do and then have them do it, they change people's attitude. So you are asking someone who likes you more, but you are still asking. Which means you have the usual problems of asking:

1) People can only do what they can do, your ability to ask them doesn't give them super powers, so if there's a problem that requires a level 17 Wizard to solve, you have to find a level 17 Wizard to ask. And since that might take years (or never happen) but there is a level 17 Wizard literally standing right next to you, what is always going to happen 100% of the time is that the party is going to say "Yeah yeah, you have a big bonus on your diplomacy check, shut up Dumb McFighter and let the Wizard do everything because we don't have time to indulge your pathetic attempt to find someone to ask."

2) People still only do it if they want to do it. "Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid" So they will take risks to help you, that doesn't mean they will always help you any more than the fact that I would take risks to help my brother means I'll fly to another state to put food in his mouth. He can do that just fine on his own, and the level 17 Wizards you inexplicably find under every rock aren't going to help you solve problems when they can see that standing right next to you is someone else who already solved the problem while you were digging up rocks to find level 17 Wizards.

a) Summons and Dominates aren't doing something someone else could do, they are doing something else someone could do while doing what you can do. Since Fighters bring literally nothing to the solution board, their ability to spend 65 years looking for a Wizard to pretty please help them is irrelevant when another Wizard is there. Since the choice is between being a Wizard and having a Glabrezu army or being a fighter, there is an actual opportunity cost to picking fighter, in that you are objectively worse at fighting, (and also all the other stuff).

b) Summoning is usually pretty ****, but the main point of many of those things is that they let you do stuff that no one else could do. Being able to call a Nightmare at level 9 is doing something no one else can do.

[Liquor Box]

Nope, you are totally asking. That's pretty apparent from the rules. The Diplomacy rules don't all your to tell other people what to do and then have them do it, they change people's attitude. So you are asking someone who likes you more, but you are still asking. Which means you have the usual problems of asking:

1) People can only do what they can do, your ability to ask them doesn't give them super powers, so if there's a problem that requires a level 17 Wizard to solve, you have to find a level 17 Wizard to ask. And since that might take years (or never happen) but there is a level 17 Wizard literally standing right next to you, what is always going to happen 100% of the time is that the party is going to say "Yeah yeah, you have a big bonus on your diplomacy check, shut up Dumb McFighter and let the Wizard do everything because we don't have time to indulge your pathetic attempt to find someone to ask."

2) People still only do it if they want to do it. "Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid" So they will take risks to help you, that doesn't mean they will always help you any more than the fact that I would take risks to help my brother means I'll fly to another state to put food in his mouth. He can do that just fine on his own, and the level 17 Wizards you inexplicably find under every rock aren't going to help you solve problems when they can see that standing right next to you is someone else who already solved the problem while you were digging up rocks to find level 17 Wizards.

a) Summons and Dominates aren't doing something someone else could do, they are doing something else someone could do while doing what you can do. Since Fighters bring literally nothing to the solution board, their ability to spend 65 years looking for a Wizard to pretty please help them is irrelevant when another Wizard is there. Since the choice is between being a Wizard and having a Glabrezu army or being a fighter, there is an actual opportunity cost to picking fighter, in that you are objectively worse at fighting, (and also all the other stuff).

b) Summoning is usually pretty ****, but the main point of many of those things is that they let you do stuff that no one else could do. Being able to call a Nightmare at level 9 is doing something no one else can do.

1. Sure, you need a 17th level wizard to do a task that only a 17th level wizard can do. But those a pretty rare - the task proposed was to build a magical castle. A much lower level caster (which need not be a wizard) is likely to be able to accomplish that.

2. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. If someone is willing to take risks to help me, why would they not help me do something that carries no risk?

a. Lots of summons do lots of the things that the party fighter could do. Just like an intimidated caster can do lots of the things the party wizard can do.

b.Well a warblade could probably intimidate a nightmare well before level 9.

[Liquor Box]

The problem with making something skill or feat based is that anyone can use it via optimizing their skill checks or just taking the feat. Unless the restrictions are class-based, there's not much of a point to such things.

The Fighter has Intimidate class features (well, one ACF), but it's still based on something that a lot of things become immune to VERY early on (fear immunity is common).

Sure, I agree. Any high level character could potentially do these things (although less easily than one that had those skills as a class skill).

I don't see the problem with that either. A high level character should be able to do most things - either himself or by using his minions if it requires skills that his caster does not have.

[ryu]

1. Sure, you need a 17th level wizard to do a task that only a 17th level wizard can do. But those a pretty rare - the task proposed was to build a magical castle. A much lower level caster (which need not be a wizard) is likely to be able to accomplish that.

2. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. If someone is willing to take risks to help me, why would they not help me do something that carries no risk?

a. Lots of summons do lots of the things that the party fighter could do. Just like an intimidated caster can do lots of the things the party wizard can do.

b.Well a warblade could probably intimidate a nightmare well before level 9.

Okay first off: How in the bloody hell are you making a fear effect relevant past like... level seven or so tops? Everyone and their gradma is immune one way or another by then.

Second: Even harder, how are you going to FIND a nightmare, much less intimidate it before level 9?

[Beheld]

1. Sure, you need a 17th level wizard to do a task that only a 17th level wizard can do. But those a pretty rare - the task proposed was to build a magical castle. A much lower level caster (which need not be a wizard) is likely to be able to accomplish that.

1) Not really. 2) The party definitely won't give you time to find and then beat up a different Wizard either, because again, you are just wasting time, since one of the party members who isn't you can do it in less than the year it takes you to find someone to ask for help only to discover they won't help you.


2. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. If someone is willing to take risks to help me, why would they not help me do something that carries no risk?

Because you are asking him to do something that was already done before you found him? Because you are asking him to do something that requires him to take time out of his day, when he doesn't need to, because any reasonable person would have asked the guy standing next to him.


a. Lots of summons do lots of the things that the party fighter could do. Just like an intimidated caster can do lots of the things the party wizard can do.

Do you always dispute that A + B > B for positive integers? Or only when B is the fighter?


b.Well a warblade could probably intimidate a nightmare well before level 9.

No, he definitely can't. On the other hand, surely he can just look around for a Wizard who is somehow going to stand there and listen to threats for ten minutes without teleporting away or killing him, and then intimidate him and ask him to pretty please capture and then dimensional anchor the Nightmare, because your warblade is so damn useless that he literally is an empty character sheet with "I ask Wizards to do everything for me" written on it.

[Liquor Box]

The problem with that idea and diplomacy is that it's not a standard action. You start your minute long diplomacy attempt, then either get murdered or teleported away from depending on the relative power of the victim. If you want to optimize to the point you can reliably do it in a standard the response is a contingent defeaning spell triggered by people attempting to diplomacy you.

Intimidate is fear based, and thus vulnerable to so many things it's hilarious. If you want to talk about the ''realism'' of intimidation being responded to with attempted murder... You do realize the level 17 caster has no reason to fear you right? Or that even if they did the most sensible thing would be to teleport away?

Let's not forget the premise here - we are talking using Deathtongue's character which he is clearly envisaging as being all powerful in combat - to use his words "could kill the Lady of Pain AND Pun-Pun by flexing his pinky finger".

Also, we are not necesarily talking about a 17th level wizard here. A much lower level caster may well be sufficient for the scenarios proposed.

In terms of diplomacy:
- Diplomacy is not something to be defended against, so nobody would deafen themselves, any more than you would immediately disconnect your computer if you saw someone trying to persuade you something on the internet. This is particular true of wizards, who are intelligent and therefore more likely to consider themselves immune to persuasion.
- The spell would have to be contingent on someone talking to you, because diplomacy is merely talking, but in a way likely to influence.
- Deafening yourself may not work because diplomacy is (correct me if I'm wrong) not restricted to oral communication. You may get a circumstance bonus.

In terms of intimidate:
- A 17th level caster has every reason to fear me, remembering the premise.
- It doesn't actually matter whether he actually has reason to fear me or not. Intimidate is based on whether he does fear me or not, not on whether that fear is justified.
- It may not be sensible to teleport away. If you do so my character may abuse the wizard on a later date. Also, intimidate is not based on rational decision, the fear that my character might get retribution may be sufficient 9it depends on the dice - or maybe it doesn't depending on how optimised my intimidate is).
- I didn't say anything about intimidatin being responded to by attempted murder. But I expect that would only occur if the intimidation attempt failed. If so I would have to dispose of you and eat your experience (I hope you were epic level), and trot along to the next wizard.

[Liquor Box]

1) Not really
Yes really (I think I need some sort of eye roll emoticon for responding to you sometimes).

What is it about building a castle with some magic in it that you think requires a 17th level caster?


2) The party definitely won't give you time to find and then beat up a different Wizard either, because again, you are just wasting time, since one of the party members who isn't you can do it in less than the year it takes you to find someone to ask for help only to discover they won't help you.

I took the scenario to be the super-powered warblade acting alone, and that was what I was responding to.

Sure, if there's a wizard handy who can do it, let him. It's good that someone crafted a challenge that can make the wizard feel useful, when after the super-warblade has been protecting him from all the deities and stuff.


Because you are asking him to do something that was already done before you found him? Because you are asking him to do something that requires him to take time out of his day, when he doesn't need to, because any reasonable person would have asked the guy standing next to him.
I think most people would interpret a favourable diplomacy result as being sufficient to persuade someone to take time out of their day.


Do you always dispute that A + B > B for positive integers? Or only when B is the fighter?

No I don't dispute it ever. The super warblade plus his 17th level wizard lackey > a warblade by himself. Just like the wizad plus his figther lackey > the wizard by himself.


No, he definitely can't. On the other hand, surely he can just look around for a Wizard who is somehow going to stand there and listen to threats for ten minutes without teleporting away or killing him, and then intimidate him and ask him to pretty please capture and then dimensional anchor the Nightmare, because your warblade is so damn useless that he literally is an empty character sheet with "I ask Wizards to do everything for me" written on it.

Yes, he definitely can.

As for the rest of your post, its just silly. The super warblade may need to bully a few magicians to do some things for him, but the majority of tasks he can handle himself. Just like a wizard may need to summon or dominate creatures for some purposes, but the majority of tasks he can do himself.

[Xetheral]

Don't get me wrong. I strongly feel that 3E D&D's rejection of the typical LotR/Final Fantasy-derived character progression arc for casters was an accident.

Regarding genre-conventions, Tolkein had very non-linear warriors, we just don't see it "on screen" very well, because combat is described so briefly in the text. Here are some examples:


In The Return of the King, Gandalf says: "And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece." Even if we assume this is metaphor, it establishes that an individual warrior can be far more powerful than another.

In The Silmarilion, Hurin, the greatest warrior of mortal men, single-handedly slays 70 trolls in one battle. Considering that the Fellowship collectively had difficulty with a single troll, this illustrates again that two warriors can be very, very far apart on the power curve.

Also in The Silmarilion, Ecthelion, an Elf Lord, mutually slays Gothmog, greatest of the Balrogs, in single combat. This firmly establishes that a warrior (at least an Elven one) can be of a league with Gandalf the Grey.
Of course, none of these examples strictly demonstrate non-linearity in the mathematical sense (that would depend on how one mapped individual characters to character levels), but by showing that warriors can be so vastly different in relative power (and that they can match powerful wizards) I think the examples make it clear that LoTR isn't a good example of "linear" anything.

[Big Fau]

Sure, I agree. Any high level character could potentially do these things (although less easily than one that had those skills as a class skill).

I don't see the problem with that either. A high level character should be able to do most things - either himself or by using his minions if it requires skills that his caster does not have.

Not high levels. It's relatively simple for an optimized Intimidate build to hit a DC 50 by level 10.

[Extra Anchovies]

The thing I find most illuminating about the latter half of the discussion, even when people here try to imagine what a Quadratic Warrior does, they basically imagine the archetype doing the same thing they always did but more efficiently.

The thing is, even if you made a level 20 Warblade being able to use literally any of the printed manuevers in the Bo9S at-will at no slower than a swift action (a proposal a lot more radical and overpowering than practically anything I've seen proposed), they'd still be at the relative mercy of the plot as much as a level 9 fighter. Oh, sure, they could turn monsters into chunky salsa just by looking at them funny but if the adventure called for a magical castle to be built in a year to fulfill a prophecy or for the character to travel to hidden undersea locations across the world to destroy the Aboleth God's source of power, they still only have two options: give the DM puppy-dog eyes until they drop plot devices in their lap or beg a PC spellcaster for help.

I think the crux of this problem is that high-level fighters are frequently thought of as akin to Conan, when they should really be more like Heracles or Gilgamesh. Need to build a castle in a year? A high-level fighter can accomplish in one day what a crew of two hundred ordinary laborers would need a week to do. Need to travel to hidden undersea locations? A high-level fighter can hold their breath for days at a time and swim at twenty knots without breaking a sweat. Need to get to another plane? A high-level fighter can find the nearest ley line or stonehenge, hit the ground just right to bust open a planar right Subtle Knife-style, and waltz on through. Need to get into a stronghold warded with protective spells and guarded by extraplanar baddies? A high-level fighter can whack the magic right out of things, applying Dispel Magic and Dismissal on every hit. Fighters can definitely have a nice suite of abilities while remaining true to the theme of "good at fighting", it just requires creative thinking about how they could apply their martial skill to situations other than direct combat.

[LudicSavant]

So... has nobody noticed the suggestions on how the Fighter builds a castle and does underwater investigations and gets a minion army and dominates people and plane-hops about without being Charles Atlas Flexing Superman or diplomancing a wizard to do it for him? It's like it didn't even happen. People just went right back to assuming that those are the only boxes to think in.

There are tons of angles that you can approach these things from, yet the 3.5e community seems insistent upon thinking inside the 3.5e boxes. What do I mean by that? How can I put this... there seems to be a mentality to the effect of "We can only fix the fighter using existing 3.5e paradigms, and all of the solution must be stuff that typically goes on the class page." This tends to result in the two most common types of unsatisfying fighter fixes I see churned out by the dozen: There's the "more of the same" approach where they throw more feats, more weapon specialization, more hp, more BAB, more existing problematic structures at it... and the "aping the Wizard" approach, where the Fighter approaches problems roughly the way the Wizard does except he replaces mystical dance moves and babbling in tongues with Charles Atlas flexing.

The first is unsatisfying because it doesn't work. The second is unsatisfying because it violates the core fantasy of many players. So why do people keep thinking inside of those boxes? It's not like we don't have other boxes available in gaming and media as a whole.

You know who doesn't seem like they'd have much trouble building a castle or going on underwater investigations to foil the Aboleths? Link from the Legend of Zelda. He can totally do that @#$%, and he can beat up the "too animu" guys while he's doing it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o2SV6ynJYQ) (I still cringe every time I hear that phrase, ugh). Sure, Link's not an example of a max level character, but he's got a concept that can be easily scaled up in ways that existing martials struggle with. What do we need to make a good Link? For starters...

1) Shields that @#$%ing do work. Batting around magical projectiles with swords. Doesn't do anything for the plot stuff, but goddammit this needs to be a thing.
2) The ability to master diverse weapon and tool sets right away, including outside of the level structure (just like all of the tier 1 characters can switch around their kits outside of level-ups). The Link equivalent of preparing new spells the next day is drawing a new set of weapons and binding them to his C slots. He has a whole new set of maneuvers when he draws a new weapon.
3) An itemization system that isn't hot flaming garbage for martials. This is a big one that I rarely see addressed (seriously, the "+1 sword vs wizard Batman toolbelt" thing is just as much an example of linear vs quadratic problems as the @#$% on the class page). I don't think people appreciate just how big a deal it is that casters got a way better itemization system in D&D (again, because I think people are overly focused on the material that's specifically on the Class pages, even though tons of other systemic stuff works to screw over martials too). Characters like Link or Hawkeye or Batman are gadgeteers and that's totally a schtick that can scale up hard and solve plot problems.
4) Good UMD. Link can totally use wands and the like and he never screws it up.

[Beheld]

No I don't dispute it ever. The super warblade plus his 17th level wizard lackey > a warblade by himself. Just like the wizad plus his figther lackey > the wizard by himself.

No, the reason Animate Dead or Planar Binding are great, is because it allows you to be both at zero cost, unlike fighters, who can't ever be Wizards.


Yes, he definitely can.

Again, you assertion based on your failure to understand the rules doesn't magically transform into fact. Warblades can't intimidate jack ****. Because to intimidate basically anything you care about, you need to beat it up, tie it up, then cast Dimensional Anchor, and the Warblade can't do that last thing at all, and probably will fail to do the first thing.


As for the rest of your post, its just silly. The super warblade may need to bully a few magicians to do some things for him, but the majority of tasks he can handle himself. Just like a wizard may need to summon or dominate creatures for some purposes, but the majority of tasks he can do himself.

Except as pointed out, the Warblade can't even bully anything. Which is why he's such a chump, since he literally never gets to play outside of combat ever, unless someone else takes pity and captures exactly what he needs and restrains it for him.


So... has nobody noticed the suggestions on how the Fighter builds a castle and does underwater investigations and gets a minion army and dominates people and plane-hops about without being Charles Atlas Flexing Superman or diplomancing a wizard to do it for him? It's like it didn't even happen. People just went right back to assuming that those are the only boxes to think in.

Elothar Warrior of Bladereach and the Tome Fighter in Races of War were written in 2006. I don't know what you think you are adding to the conversation, but I doubt you are adding it. The problem isn't that no one can come up with things for the fighter to do, it's that when people come up with things for the fighter to do they either: 1) Suck, 2) Aren't Fightery, 3) Suck (Because they are too good).

Some people have a dumb conception of Fighter they want to keep in the game.
Some people don't.

The first people are never going to be happy with any character capable of doing anything useful in a high level environment, (while at the same time arguing they can mind control people they can't even find with their powerful threats,) and the second people just removed the fighter concept from their games and replaced it with real characters who get real abilities at higher levels a long time ago.

If you absolutely have to try to wed both groups, then you can totally just hand Fighters UMD as a class skill and the ability to craft every item in the game, like was done in 2006, and then move on. But that still won'y make reasonable people happy, since you know, crafting items and then UMDing them is a really ****ty character concept that eight other classes already do as a secondary thing that is so minor that most characters of those classes literally never do it at all.

[LudicSavant]

Elothar Warrior of Bladereach and the Tome Fighter in Races of War were written in 2006. Yes. They were mentioned, by myself and others.


I don't know what you think you are adding to the conversation, but I doubt you are adding it. Right back atcha. We already know about Races of War. It was mentioned in the original post of this thread, in fact.


But that still won'y make reasonable people happy, since you know, crafting items and then UMDing them is a really ****ty character concept that eight other classes already do as a secondary thing that is so minor that most characters of those classes literally never do it at all.

Uhm, okay? There were only about 50 other suggestions beyond crafting items of the sort already in the game (something I didn't even mention, actually, thanks for all the straw) and UMDing them, so you acting like that's the only thing (or even one of the more important things) that was suggested seems rather... odd. As does the bit where you act as though crafting items and UMDing them is such a "minor and @#$%ty" character concept, given the success that the Artificer has had with it. It is quite clearly a concept that scales up into the higher power levels.

[Beheld]

Uhm, okay? There were only about 50 other suggestions beyond crafting items of the sort already in the game (something I didn't even mention, actually, thanks for all the straw) and UMDing them, so you acting like that's the only thing (or even one of the more important things) that was suggested seems rather... odd. As does the bit where you act as though crafting items and UMDing them is such a "minor and @#$%ty" character concept, given the success that the Artificer has had with it.

Maybe you could drop the persecution complex? When I specifically said "If you have to wed both groups you can do X" that was not an allegation that you personally advocated and argued for X and only X. It was just a statement about what people can try to do when merging people who hate the concept of fighter and people who love the concept of fighter.

I thought it was clear from my previous comments, that you were not one of the latter, so all your solutions are unacceptable to them, because then their fighters wouldn't be boring fighters, and this would for some reason make them sad.

[LudicSavant]

When I specifically said "If you have to wed both groups you can do X" that was not an allegation that you personally advocated and argued for X and only X. It was just a statement about what people can try to do when merging people who hate the concept of fighter and people who love the concept of fighter.

I thought it was clear from my previous comments, that you were not one of the latter, so all your solutions are unacceptable to them, because then their fighters wouldn't be boring fighters, and this would for some reason make them sad.

Alright then. I misunderstood your intent.

As to what I was addressing, the comment you replied to before was not directed at appeasing a nebulous "some people" who are saddened by non-boring fighters. It was directed at specific concerns raised by specific posters. Namely, the guy who asked how a martial character would go about building a castle to fulfill a prophecy and going on underwater investigations to foil aboleths without asking his Wizard buddy to solve the problem for him.

[Liquor Box]

I think the crux of this problem is that high-level fighters are frequently thought of as akin to Conan, when they should really be more like Heracles or Gilgamesh. Need to build a castle in a year? A high-level fighter can accomplish in one day what a crew of two hundred ordinary laborers would need a week to do. Need to travel to hidden undersea locations? A high-level fighter can hold their breath for days at a time and swim at twenty knots without breaking a sweat. Need to get to another plane? A high-level fighter can find the nearest ley line or stonehenge, hit the ground just right to bust open a planar right Subtle Knife-style, and waltz on through. Need to get into a stronghold warded with protective spells and guarded by extraplanar baddies? A high-level fighter can whack the magic right out of things, applying Dispel Magic and Dismissal on every hit. Fighters can definitely have a nice suite of abilities while remaining true to the theme of "good at fighting", it just requires creative thinking about how they could apply their martial skill to situations other than direct combat.

I think doing those sorts of things fit well with the martial concept in the ToB. That is the can be extraordinary abilities rather than magical. For example, a stance where the Warblade did not have to breathe for a day would by in line with other stances, like the one giving them scent.

Another simple way of scaling up martials would be to simply increase their magical defences. Magical defences are not necessarily magical in and of themselves (they usually wouldn't be).

[Liquor Box]

Not high levels. It's relatively simple for an optimized Intimidate build to hit a DC 50 by level 10.

Well, I was suggested that intimidate would be just one aspect of a well rounded super-warblade that could accomplish anything, so what I was contemplating need not be so optimised.

But I don't disagree with you.

[Liquor Box]

No, the reason Animate Dead or Planar Binding are great, is because it allows you to be both at zero cost, unlike fighters, who can't ever be Wizards.

Hmm. I'm sure I just explained to you how the warblade could intimidate the wizard to get his skills at zero cost.


Again, you assertion based on your failure to understand the rules doesn't magically transform into fact. Warblades can't intimidate jack ****. Because to intimidate basically anything you care about, you need to beat it up, tie it up, then cast Dimensional Anchor, and the Warblade can't do that last thing at all, and probably will fail to do the first thing.

Except as pointed out, the Warblade can't even bully anything. Which is why he's such a chump, since he literally never gets to play outside of combat ever, unless someone else takes pity and captures exactly what he needs and restrains it for him.

I have already responded to that point when it was made by Ryu a page or so back.

[Beheld]

Hmm. I'm sure I just explained to you how the warblade could intimidate the wizard to get his skills at zero cost.

I'm sure you claimed that with no evidence or argument as a bald assertion. That's a little different than explaining how it is done.


I have already responded to that point when it was made by Ryu a page or so back.

Either requoted it, give at least what page it is on, preferably post, or don't rely on it, because if you decide your argument is so bad it's not worth looking up, why should I bother?