Quadratic Fighters?

[AvatarVecna]

Got a silly idea into my head about the usual "linear fighter quadratic wizard" problem: what if the fighters were just made to advance quadratically? If a low-tier had a number of class levels equal to the square of the high-tier character's class level, would that make them more competitive? If not, how does it change the point at which they cease being competitive? Is there a point where sheer numbers and feat options overcome the versatility of magic?

To keep the obvious answers from filling the thread:
Assume that wealth is equal between them, and equivalent to the WBL for a character of the high-tier character's level.
No casters or caster-equivalents, no matter how low tier they might be.
Planar Binding/Wish/Gate loops are a no-go regardless of source.

This thread isn't about using these enormous resources to kludge a "not-a-real caster" character into a "can fake being a real caster" character, it's about finding a point where not being a real caster ceases to make you less useful at higher-op gameplay. Yes, a commoner with 400th lvl WBL would probably be the kind of god only an epic zeroficer can truly become. Yes, a Truenamer with 400 skill ranks would be pretty impressive. Yes, a Healer spamming Gate at level 5 would be powerful. Yes, a Mystic Fire Paladin 400 with Epic Spellcasting, Improved Spell Capacity 30, Improved Metamagic 30, and every metamagic feat in the game would be quite a force to be reckoned with even if they're forced to just use increasingly-powerful versions of low-level spells rather than getting to play with even the ****ty standard versions of the big boy toys. Yes, triggering an early Planar Binding/Wish/Gate loop would be pretty useful in achieving ultimate power. I know. But if you're not doing that kinda stuff, if you're not using these resources to turn a noncaster into a high-HD knockoff caster, can you still accomplish impressive things?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The problem isn't, as much as many would have you believe, that warrior characters can't reach the appropriate numbers to do what they're supposed to in the vanilla game. Judicious use of WBL can pretty much guarantee not only that you make the target numbers but that you can overcome a whole host of special defenses as well.

The problem is that even the most adeptly built and played warriors can rarely do more than fight really well unless they sacrifice fighting ability to expand their non-combat options (again largely a function of WBL, although multiclassing can also play a role.) At the same time, a caster gains both tremendous depth and breadth of power simply from their primary class feature before they even consider what to do with their wealth (usually spent on making the same even more powerful and versatile.)

The bottom line is that, in this system, there is only -two- solutions to the problem and nobody likes either; nerf the casters until they too have to choose between depth or breadth of power (accomplished largely by trimming the spell lists and banning a few problematic features) or boost the non-casters to the point that they basically become spellcasters on a different spellcasting system (this is commonly attributed to ToB but that source doesn't go nearly far enough down this line of thought to be what I'm talking about here. A -huge- selection of modular powers that can be rapidly swapped from day to day is required.)

Frankly, I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that this isn't really a problem anyway. In practice, getting a "wizard' to handle in a fashion that is "quadratic" enough to overwhelm what the non-casters do requires what amounts to a university minor in 3e D&D-ology. At the same time, the guy playing a barbarian typically just wants to whack things with a pointy stick until they fall down and isn't all that worried about the talky bits in-between fights.

It only really crops up in a couple predictable circumstances that all have solutions of varying practicality:

First: the "low magic" setting;

A GM decides he doesn't like the christmas tree worth of glowing magic items that the base game expects -all- characters to get as they progress and does away with them. As noted above, this effects non-casters dramatically more than casters. The solution is, of course, to nerf or ban most full-casting classes in a way that reduces them in capability to the same degree as dumping WBL does to non-casters. The adept from the DMG and the Magewright from ECS are both as reliant on their gear as any non-caster would be because of their anemic lists and make a decent quick-and-dirty fix for caster supremacy in such a game if you don't want to relegate direct spellcasting to the realm of GM-only material.

Second: the inappropriate optimizer;

A player that actually has the requisite knowledge to go totally wild with a caster (or isn't shy about shopping online for such knowledge) refuses to hold back on pushing that power to its limit. This is ultimately a problem of communication and/or game expectations. You either convince him to roll it back, convince the other players to play the optimization game to try and keep up, or you accept you have different expectations from the game and ask him to find another group. You -can-, if you have the even deeper knowledge of the system required to do so, build encounters and dungeons around dealing with the disparity but that's extremely difficult and I don't recommend it. At all.

Third: the inverse optimizer or stormwind moron;

A player consistently builds or plays their character such that an entirely ordinary locked closet in a peasant hovel is a serious challenge; either because they just plain suck at problem solving or believe that optimization is anathema to playing a role. Not a problem in itself but can become one if either he or the rest of the group grows tired of his characters being what amounts to comic relief/ dead-weight. This is ultimately the same problem as the previous and has largely the same solution: convince/ help him to build and play more competently, ask the rest of the group to make simpler characters so you can tone down the challenges, realize that you're just not a good player-gm fit, or take on the challenge of finding a way to make him more useful/ successful without putting the other players off.


None of these should come up so frequently, if you have a decent pool of players, that overhauling the system is really necessary.


Hope this... rant(?) is helpful and not just a useless text wall.

[Karl Aegis]

Don't Paladins get that Epic feat that doubles the amount of damage smiting does that stacks with itself? Just combine that with the minor teleports they get like Knight's Move and Door to Great Evil and they will 100% break the game by level 62 at the latest.

[CharonsHelper]

Good stuff!

I'll +1 and add another point.

Caster/martial issues are only a MAJOR problem once the levels get into the double digits, which is a pretty small minority of campaigns. Balance (moreso in Pathfinder 1e than D&D 3.x) is pretty good for the first 8ish levels, hence the appeal of E6 & E8 campaigns.

It's anecdotal, but I've only played in one campaign which got into the teens (maybe a second up to 10 or 11), and that was a campaign which started at level 5-6 (I forget now more than a decade later) and I had the characters skip 3ish levels as a shadow creature powered them up in stasis for a few years. (Sort of a Legend of Zelda thing - move forward after the BBEG got the MacGuffins and the BBEG had taken over, only without being able to go back in time.)

Caster/martial balance still wasn't a major issue in that campaign though, because the only full caster went Mystic Theurge. He had spells for days and utility out the wazoo, but he lacked the oomph to be overshadowing.

[AvatarVecna]

Most of the stuff the forum discusses doesn't really reflect real games that well, yes. Most games will probably see mages taking a solid lead in versatility, but it's rarely taken far enough that noncasters will feel useless - usually far before that point can be reached, conversations will be had to avoid that. Rule number 1 at the table is "lets have fun with our friends" and serious optimization efforts can get in the way of that unless everyone's on the same page in that regard. That's not really what I'm looking for with this thread, exactly. More of a..."at what point does a save become high enough that it can be considered a suitable replacement for immunity gained via spells" or "at what point are your stealth skills/feats good enough to make up for not having literal invisibility" and things of that nature. I didn't make a thread about "what if a fighter 400 competed with a wizard would that be fair" as anything other than silly charop shenanigans, while trying to avoid the obvious solutions that are also boring answers. :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends.

If we're sticking to class by class comparisons, then the same problem that always existed is largely unaddressed. No amount of HD will change that and even being able to spend 100% of WBL on non-combat gear won't really go very far. I'd hazard by 6th or 7th level the breadth of spellcasting options will be beyond cash's ability to broaden options.

If, on the other hand, prestige classes are available to the non-casters as long as they don't give spellcasting, then things become -much- more interesting. Arguably, it might even break even with the T2s. There's a -lot- of options and trickery out there.

[AvatarVecna]

Depends.

If we're sticking to class by class comparisons, then the same problem that always existed is largely unaddressed. No amount of HD will change that and even being able to spend 100% of WBL on non-combat gear won't really go very far. I'd hazard by 6th or 7th level the breadth of spellcasting options will be beyond cash's ability to broaden options.

If, on the other hand, prestige classes are available to the non-casters as long as they don't give spellcasting, then things become -much- more interesting. Arguably, it might even break even with the T2s. There's a -lot- of options and trickery out there.

I was kinda on the fence about PrCs, less because I think it's unfair as much as that it can be hard to judge them tier-wise. I think existing attempts at tiering them ends up being more about how they tend to alter the tier of whatever you built them on top of, rather than their own inherent tier, although this...probably won't be a problem here? It'd be kinda interesting to see what people could do with 390 levels worth of PrCs, I suppose. :smalltongue:

[frogglesmash]

The problem as far as I can tell is that the rules are doing a more or less competent job of modeling certain fantasy archetypes, unfortunately some those archetypes are capable of far more impressive feats than others. When you start trying to twiddle with the rules in an effort to create balance you almost always either don't create balance, or create balance by making the rules no longer represent the intended archetypes. In short, there's virtually no way to make a fighter just as capable as a wizard without turning into something that is not a fighter.

[Aotrs Commander]

The problem as far as I can tell is that the rules are doing a more or less competent job of modeling certain fantasy archetypes, unfortunately some those archetypes are capable of far more impressive feats than others. When you start trying to twiddle with the rules in an effort to create balance you almost always either don't create balance, or create balance by making the rules no longer represent the intended archetypes. In short, there's virtually no way to make a fighter just as capable as a wizard without turning into something that is not a fighter.

Exactly.


But, no-one has addressed what this solution likely looks like, so let's have a quick gander, shall we?


If a low-tier had a number of class levels equal to the square of the high-tier character's class level,

So, when the fighter is level 4, the wizard/cleric is 2; okay, the wizard/cleric is 3, the party is 9, wiz/clr 4,vrs fighter 16; and at 20th level, either the wizard/cleric never reaches 5th level, or the the fighter is level 400.

Nevermind anything else, the game would be impossible to balance for DM verses players, let alone anything else.

In the latter case especially.

Heck, I suppose it WOULD bring some balance to the casters, on the basis that they would be almost completely unable to kill low-tier enemies (who would have to be similarly buffed or the fighter trivialises all combats, basically) apart from any effect that doesn't allow a saving throw; as hit point damage is laughable and saves are impossible for fail unless they roll a 1 (AND they haven't spent any of their 134+ feats on Steadfast Determination, Dumb Luck, Survivor's Luck plus two a feat-tax to use those and essentially become immune to saving throws in practical terms), as base saves are, entirely independant of the first twenty class levels, at least +190. Cloudkill and the like become more or less the only option, since it deals save-for-half on ability score damage and if you're lucky, the fighter hasn't dumped much if any of his stat points into Con.

Combat would take forever even if you had two fighters whaling on each other, because they still only get four to (generously, if you assume perfect two-weapon-fighting is a feat or if there's an epic one for it) 8/9 attacks per round and you have an average (and at that number, if you roll for hit points, it WOULD average) of 2200+400*Con hit points, the BAB would be 190+the at that point insignificant 1-20th BAB; WBL is still only 20th, so the fighter never misses except on a 1 or a direct hard-counter, and even if they sunk all their points into Str and nothing else, your're only looking at around Str a little south of a 130, so probably around +75 plus 210 PA (with one-handed, since you can PA to max freely because at BAB +B, you're gear plus stat is functionally above achievable ACs by anyone other than a Dex-invested rogue or monk), plus or minus on damage by the time you've added kit and feats, against what is 2600-5800 hits! (And at that damage, a single melee attack is a one-hit-or-best-case-two-KO of the wizard/cleric if it connects.

Even with the harshest usage of 3.5's skill system, the even fighter could afford to splash skills into maxing out or beyond that so that they could have more maxed-out skills to party-level than a rogue does normally and rogue probably is functionally well-beyond the possibilty of failing any skill checks even for ludicrous DCs. A PF-like one would make it even easier.

Never mind a bottom-tier multilcass build, or even one with a handful of levels of a high-tier class.



And the fighter still can't do a lot of things - admittedly in this case, the gap is so wide that it probably doesn't MATTER, since in a fight the PC/NPC wizard will probably run out of duration before they can do much to the fighter, making them have to pop off to another plane or something to rest up and regain spells befor having to resume the endless task of trying to knobble the NPC/PC fighter when he finally rolls 1 on his will save several times in a row (since any 400th level fighter than HASN'T taken Steadfast determination in this play environment is asking for it) or the wizard manages to get the terrain somehow to hold the fighter long enough to Cloudkill him to death. None of which seems like it'd be much fun.



So that would break the game worse, while fundementally still not solving the issue and any issues it solves it does so by vastly inverting the power-curve and breaking it the other way.



Ultimately, even a lesser solution of giving fewer levels has the problems to a degree; it starts to basically just narrow-down close off whole avenues of playstyles; if you want save-or-sucks to be mostly worthless and suffer from Final Fantasy Death syndrome (i.e. anything worth using it on is immune to it), you might as well just outright ban those from play, it'd be easier and probably quicker.

[Eldan]

Numbers alone clearly don't matter that much. I mean, imagine a pure fighter of class level arbitrary. All his stats are arbitrary, so: if he can reach an enemy all his attacks will hit. If the enemy is vulnerable to hit point damage, it is dead once hit. He has arbitrarily hit points, so he can never die to HP damage. That fighter has an arbitrarily high skill check in the physical skills and maybe intimidate. Let's be generous and say he also has decent cross-class skills like social skills, because he has arbitrary skill points.

That character still needs a magical weapon to wound a ghost. He still goes down to ability damage and drain. He can still be teleported away. He still can't beat initiative of a wizard with the right spells, because those automatically go first. He still can't deal with any number of threats, he just automatically removes any standard monster who doesn't have any immunities or unusual abilities. I don't think it makes for a fun game.

[Aotrs Commander]

He can still be teleported away.

Can he though? Don't all spells like that have saves? Or a caster level which would need to be arbitarily high or something?


(I mean, I'm not disagreeing with the rest, but...)

[Endarire]

Forum logic only sometimes applies to in-the-field-during-game-time-logic. Yes, a Cleric knows tens or hundreds of spells, but most choose a small subset of them to cast. Not needing to cast a spell is often better than casting one.

I also understand that the difference in power is most pronounced at level 11+. There have been plenty of more standard games I've played at level 1-6 where the martial/caster disparity favored the martials because they had higher HP, higher accuracy, and could keep going with their thing hour after hour.

[ThatMoonGuy]

You don't need to go full punpun to make a Fighter player feel useless or at least overshadowed in battle. I remember one time when the ship my party was in got attacked by pirates. Our party was me, a stalker, and two friends of mine, a druid and a mesmerist. We had some time to prepare before the pirates boarded our ship so I went to the inner ship and prepared some traps (tripwire, caltrops, those things) and awaited for the pirates to come looking downstairs so that I could take then by surprise. The mesmerist hid and awaited. The druid? The druid turned into a seagull, flew to the pirate ship and just blew the gunpowder reserves and a large part of the ship together with it.

That ain't a trick my character could easily pull off. It was a sex based build and plenty good at stealth but there was no way she could swim all the way to the enemy ship in those conditions. If my character was good at swimming (maybe if she had high Str or many grads in swim) she probably wouldn't be good at stealth. And even if she was good on both, the sheer adaptability that magic powers and spells bring to the table is just way too much. And keep in mind I was playing a Veiled Moon focused Stalker and not a vanilla rogue or fighter.

Not only that, but I know far more about optimization than those guys do. They didn't intend to just crush challenges nor anything like thatz they simply played a class as is. That wasn't the only situation when that happened but is a very telling one. I had this happen in other groups as well. As soon as you're playing in a map that's more complex than a box, non casters start running into serious problems. And God forbid you try to have a 3D combat map. I once had a fight take place in a multilevel labyrinth of stairs and the martials (a Barbarian and a Fighter) could barely do anything due to the turns ans stairs while the "casters" (a Psion and a kineticist) managed to at least control enough of the map to have an impact since unlike an attack or the lockdown a fighter can do, spells often linger.

Anyway, I have always believed that PoW/ToB were a good start but that martials should also have outright superhuman physical capabilities. Fighters should get increased stats and movement as baseline. If a level 20 Wizard can create a demiplane, a level 20 Fighter should be cutting down buildings, running faster than a bullet and punch craters in the ground. They should totally be Superman. If you do that, then they start having utility by standard since if you have enough strength you can have crowd control by altering the map through force alone. Sheer power has value if you have enough of it.

[liquidformat]

Honestly I think you are incorrect in describing it as a quadratic, an exponential growth compared to linear is much closer. From level 1 to 5 ish the mundanes are often ahead of the full casters; somewhere around 6-10 the casters overtake the mundanes and from then on there are issues. This issue is only exacerbated once you hit epic levels because frankly epic levels are a slap in the face to mundanes and any class with less than level 6 casting pre epic. Oh congratulations here is a feat that allows you to simulate a level 2 spell to enhance your weapon, or you know if you can hit a dc100 check that skill can simulate a level 1 spell. Mean while, oh here mister full caster this spell can destroy nations and change the course of worlds for the price of a single feat.

If you want to balance this out pulling a lot of those mundane feats out from epic level and start giving them around level 12, start being to emulate level 1-2 spells with skills in the teens (giving bonuses like your bluff can act like charm person without the mind affect descriptor), and also look at what is reasonable for an epic level character to do at epic levels, feats of herculean strength for like hitting things at a distance with a sword swing for example.

On the other side removing level 7 and above spells pre-epic but keeping those spell slots to be used with metamagic balances out the game pretty dramatically. Also adjusting material costs so that it is expected that say 1/2-3/4th of your wbl will be spent on casting every level also does a lot to balance things out.

[emulord]

X compared to X^2 is obviously broken in the Fighter's favor. I think it counts if it's just O(N^2) with the actual formula being something like
floor(X+0.1*X^2)

Wizard = Fighter
1 = 1.1
2 = 2.4
3 = 3.9
4 = 5.6
5 = 7.5
6 = 9.6
7 = 11.9
8 = 14.4
9 = 17.1
10 = 20
11 = 23.1
12 = 26.4
13 = 29.9
...

At first they're evenly matched, then as the caster gets more tricks, the fighter gets better numbers. As the rate of insane cheats the wizard gets increases, the fighters numbers go from "advantage" to "yes", shutting down some of the tricks. Then when casters start getting high level magic that can resurrect or teleport vast distances, the fighter gets epic feats to cheat more aspects of the battlefield. I feel like for mid-optimization this would be fair in most ways.

[MisterKaws]

Really, fighters don't need numbers. There's plenty of ways for any martial character to achieve numbers high enough to delete boss monsters with their beatsticks of choice. The issue is just them not being able to touch said boss monsters at all because they can't move on the Z axis at all, or because said boss is on the ethereal plane, or because said boss can teleport faster than the fighter can move, or because said boss has a freaking Telekinetic Sphere and the fighter just can't go through that ever.

What fighters need is 1: more movement/long-range capabilities, 2: ways to bypass magical and/or supernatural defenses. As long as they can both match the wizards in maneuvering, as well as break through the various currently unbreakable magic defenses, they'd be at least able to compete with each other.

For NI damage, you can just make a Hulking Hurler or an ubercharger.

[Quertus]

Fighters "in the wild" are already stronger than Wizards at low level. This proposed "fix" would be ludicrous in, say, e6.

Compared to a level 10 Wizard? Well, that's 100 Fighter levels. +25 stat increase. 33+ regular feats, 51 Fighter feats, most epic. 100d10+ HP. Base saves 52/46/46. And 200+ skill points - enough to get, trivially, a +100 bonus to Diplomacy, for example.

I think that the Fighter is still ahead at that point.


First: the "low magic" setting;

A GM decides he doesn't like the christmas tree worth of glowing magic items that the base game expects -all- characters to get as they progress and does away with them. As noted above, this effects non-casters dramatically more than casters. The solution is, of course, to nerf or ban most full-casting classes in a way that reduces them in capability to the same degree as dumping WBL does to non-casters.

If the GM is… whatever… enough to make the characters - especially the muggles - weaker than the game expects, wouldn't the correct solution be to buff the base chassis (especially of the muggles) back to what the game expects, rather than to jump to weaken them further?


Numbers alone clearly don't matter that much. I mean, imagine a pure fighter of class level arbitrary. All his stats are arbitrary, so:… He still goes down to ability damage and drain.

Um, I don't think the math agrees. With enough levels, and high enough stats (and a magic weapon), he could solo the shadowpocalypse.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the GM is… whatever… enough to make the characters - especially the muggles - weaker than the game expects, wouldn't the correct solution be to buff the base chassis (especially of the muggles) back to what the game expects, rather than to jump to weaken them further?

The problem often stems from the fact that the GM in question is making a decision based on aesthetics rather than a balance concern. Given that nerfing is -dramaticallly- easier than buffing classes, it tends to be the default option for someone making this kind of lazy decision in the first place.

Trying to buff the warriors to be competitive with the casters, especially given that the casters are already minimally effected by the loss of WBL, tends to run into the problem I brought up before the segment addressing this particular issue: buffing them to the degree necessary removes them almost completely from their own archetypes and effectively makes them casters of a different sort. A nerfed caster, even one nerfed tremendously from the game's baseline, still fits into many of the archetypes that casters are supposed to fill.

Given the previous, a GM that hates the christmas tree in the first place likely won't be any happier just because the light is coming from the branches directly rather than a string of lights hanging from them. Encounter design can and should account for changes to the PCs expected power levels whether it goes up or down from baseline.

Still another reason to nerf rather than buff is that, when the low-wealth decision is made outside of pure aesthetic reasoning, it's often done to "simplify" the game. Making non-casters dramatically more complex, as you'd be required to do in order to make them competitive with casters, is antithetical to what's being sought in the first place while nerfing casters as well is just more of the same. The ironic increase in the difficulty of designing encounters that springs from this decision is typically an unpleasant surprise for such GMs as they realize they've left their PCs with little to no means to deal with a whole host of creatures and effects that become increasingly common in mid to high level play.

Frankly, I'd advise any GM that's new to the game and/or has a weak grasp on the system in the overall simply -not- attempt a "low-magic" game in the first place. It's a much more complex change than it sounds like it is when you say "No Magic Mart." This is inherently a very high-magic game.

[Katie Boundary]

What is WBL?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

What is WBL?

Wealth By Level. Martials in particular need magic items to make up for, well, not having magic, so WBL often comes up in discussions of tiers, since lower tiers are far more dependent on wealth to shore up the gaps their builds, and less than recommended WBL (or the inability to spend it freely) hurts them disproportionately.

EDIT: Here (https://www.dndarchive.com/forums/depth-roleplay-qa/character-wealth-level)'s the WBL at each level. At least, that's what I found with a quick Google search; I haven't actually double checked its accuracy.

[Mr Adventurer]

X compared to X^2 is obviously broken in the Fighter's favor. I think it counts if it's just O(N^2) with the actual formula being something like
floor(X+0.1*X^2)

Wizard = Fighter
1 = 1.1
2 = 2.4
3 = 3.9
4 = 5.6
5 = 7.5
6 = 9.6
7 = 11.9
8 = 14.4
9 = 17.1
10 = 20
11 = 23.1
12 = 26.4
13 = 29.9
...

At first they're evenly matched, then as the caster gets more tricks, the fighter gets better numbers. As the rate of insane cheats the wizard gets increases, the fighters numbers go from "advantage" to "yes", shutting down some of the tricks. Then when casters start getting high level magic that can resurrect or teleport vast distances, the fighter gets epic feats to cheat more aspects of the battlefield. I feel like for mid-optimization this would be fair in most ways.

Assuming WBL is set to 10th, I think I would still favour a level 10 Wizard over a level 20 Fighter, assuming single-classed characters (PrCs make it complicated).

[Lans]

Fighters "in the wild" are already stronger than Wizards at low level. This proposed "fix" would be ludicrous in, say, e6.

Compared to a level 10 Wizard? Well, that's 100 Fighter levels. +25 stat increase. 33+ regular feats, 51 Fighter feats, most epic. 100d10+ HP. Base saves 52/46/46. And 200+ skill points - enough to get, trivially, a +100 bonus to Diplomacy, for example.

I think that the Fighter is still ahead at that point.
.

Those regular feats gives massive reach into things like incarnum, devotion, and other pretty magical effects through the feat system. It also has 3 Martial Study feats and all the stances he wants.

At 3 the fighter can get teleport through fiendish heritage feat,


I think a better way to go about this would be to get class abilities as if it were level^2

[ThatMoonGuy]

Really, fighters don't need numbers. There's plenty of ways for any martial character to achieve numbers high enough to delete boss monsters with their beatsticks of choice. The issue is just them not being able to touch said boss monsters at all because they can't move on the Z axis at all, or because said boss is on the ethereal plane, or because said boss can teleport faster than the fighter can move, or because said boss has a freaking Telekinetic Sphere and the fighter just can't go through that ever.

What fighters need is 1: more movement/long-range capabilities, 2: ways to bypass magical and/or supernatural defenses. As long as they can both match the wizards in maneuvering, as well as break through the various currently unbreakable magic defenses, they'd be at least able to compete with each other.

For NI damage, you can just make a Hulking Hurler or an ubercharger.

Hence why I said that the fighter having broken level physical abilities would help. If an enemy is too high, let him jump very high to get to him and if the enemy is behind a TK field, ler him break it through sheer force.

Some things, tho, a Fighter should not be able to do, like astral travel. Or, rather, I totally think they should be able to do to some degree but you can't just make martials and magic the exact same. PoW has the Veiled Moon discipline which has skills like teleports, incorporeality and astral travel. See, I love PoW and Veiled Moon but I do not think that a Fighter should be able to do everything a Wizard can. There'll always need to be some niche protection and things that only a certain set of classes can interact with. It's the same reason why I think that Caster should not be able to interact with things like Psionics or Akasha.

As for the hulking hurler suggestion, this solves nothing. I don't want to play a giant that throws big rocks nor a one trick pony that charges real good. I want to play a samurai that can cut buildings in half and move 50 meters in a second, that, If need be, can cut a trench open with one attack or run up a wall and jump up to catch a dragon mid flight. The only reason why people think that Str 50 would not help is because the "physics engine" of D&D is badly defined unlike its "magic engine". And since the fighters interact way more with the first than the with the second, they get shafted. In D&D terms, being able to punch a crater in the ground would be a special ability but should it not be just a by product of having very high strength? Things like move speed should be affected by physical abilities and not just be given by your size. The fact that a knight in medium armor with 20 Str and 14 Dex moves slower than a Wizard with 8 on each ability is honestly ridiculous.

The whole problem is that while D&D has reasonably well defined magic and magical interactions (spells are basically a long list of observation on magical phenomena), it leaves the physical part to common sense when not making outright ridiculous decisions (see the Movement comment above). The idea that Str 50 is good only for dealing more damage seems so counterintuitive to me because, no, with Str 50 you should be able to cut ravines in the ground and smash walls into fine dust. That's kinda of what an epic mundane looks like to me. Captain America has no place in a party with Doctor Strange, but The Hulk has.

Maybe D&D should have a physical equivalent to the spell list. A list of things someone who has certain ability scores can do, with the necessary descriptions and mechanics. The feat list could then improve on that by giving more uses to those abilities on a level that's more significant than, you know, +1 to hit.

[NNescio]

Maybe D&D should have a physical equivalent to the spell list. A list of things someone who has certain ability scores can do, with the necessary descriptions and mechanics. The feat list could then improve on that by giving more uses to those abilities on a level that's more significant than, you know, +1 to hit.

Martial maneuvers.

I heard Iron Heart Surge is quite baller.

[RatElemental]

Martial maneuvers.

I heard Iron Heart Surge is quite baller.

Other than being extremely open ended, isn't iron heart surge practically useless due to needing an action to activate when most things you'd want to use it to shrug off remove your ability to take actions?

[ThatMoonGuy]

Martial maneuvers.

I heard Iron Heart Surge is quite baller.

Hence why I think PoW/ToB is a great first step. It just needs to be improved because most of the maneuvers are still very much combat centered. Once you start giving out maneuvers with out of combat use, then the martials become way better. SoP, for Pathfinder, has some very nice talents that are very useful out of combat, like being able to scout people to identify their class features or the ability to train animals to obey you.

You'd also need to increase the number of maneuvers that martials learn since even the Swordsage and Mystic have a rather low number of maneuvers known.

[frogglesmash]

Other than being extremely open ended, isn't iron heart surge practically useless due to needing an action to activate when most things you'd want to use it to shrug off remove your ability to take actions?

Just Iron Heart surge that requirement beforehand.


Hence why I think PoW/ToB is a great first step. It just needs to be improved because most of the maneuvers are still very much combat centered. Once you start giving out maneuvers with out of combat use, then the martials become way better. SoP, for Pathfinder, has some very nice talents that are very useful out of combat, like being able to scout people to identify their class features or the ability to train animals to obey you.

You'd also need to increase the number of maneuvers that martials learn since even the Swordsage and Mystic have a rather low number of maneuvers known.


This is what I was getting at in my original comment. If you add much more broad utility to maneuvers, you've suddenly just got another kind of wizard on your hands. Imo all the best solutions for balancing casters and mundanes are the ones that knock casters down a couple pegs. I believe this is the case because wizards and their ilk can exist at a much broader range of "power levels" while still accurately representing a caster archetype. A couple examples that I think do this particularly well are Spheres of Power, and Grod_The_Giant's fixed list caster homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5)). These both preserve the thematic trappings of the caster archetype while both decreasing their raw power, and versatility.

[RatElemental]

the ability to train animals to obey you.

3.5 and Pathfinder both kinda have that in the default rules of handle animal. Any domesticated animal can be trained and any non domesticated one can be reared. Once had a concept for a class built around rearing animals, but it's kinda like making a class built around making golems so I never really finished it.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Just Iron Heart surge that requirement beforehand.


This is what I was getting at in my original comment. If you add much more broad utility to maneuvers, you've suddenly just got another kind of wizard on your hands. Imo all the best solutions for balancing casters and mundanes are the ones that knock casters down a couple pegs. I believe this is the case because wizards and their ilk can exist at a much broader range of "power levels" while still accurately representing a caster archetype. A couple examples that I think do this particularly well are Spheres of Power, and Grod_The_Giant's fixed list caster homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5)). These both preserve the thematic trappings of the caster archetype while both decreasing their raw power, and versatility.

I agree. Personally, I've always hated the way Casters, specially Wizards, work in 3.5 and PF while also loving the concept of spellcasting it has. I love the idea of preparing for a situation and being able to deal with situations if you can see them coming. But the way they do it (spell preparations and spell slots) added to the sheer versatility of Casters always made the game wonky to me. I like SoP and specially some of its rules on ritual magic for things you don't possess. A Wizard that can do a few key things at any time but that can dedicate a few hours or days to reproduce some other effect is just how I've always envisioned the class.

As for making the fighters just Wizards by other name, that's where niche protection comes in. I do not believe that Fighters should be able to summon creatures, create walls of ice or change the weather. There has to be things they can't do and only casters can. But that doesn't mean they can't achieve the same effect through other means. So let's say a Wizard can create a web to make the ground difficult terrain. Then a Fighter can step really hard on the ground and crack it all over. That is the same effect by other means. But more extremely magical things should be outside of the realm of martial arts.


3.5 and Pathfinder both kinda have that in the default rules of handle animal. Any domesticated animal can be trained and any non domesticated one can be reared. Once had a concept for a class built around rearing animals, but it's kinda like making a class built around making golems so I never really finished it.

That's true but the rules were always kinda bad. I tried to build a few animal trainers before but the rules for commanding animals are wonky and the benefit isn't too great. Hence why I think the SoP version is better since it gives you more versatility and clearer rules. 3.5/PF does have a lot of rules but they can be very hard to work with sometimes. No wonder they came up with 4e after it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What is WBL?

WBL stands for Wealth By Level. One of the vanilla game's underlying premises is that one of the things that motivates PCs is the desire to acquire wealth. Since magic items exist and there's always a market for tools that better allow you to do your job, the decision was made to consciously include the benefits of having magic items in how the PC power curve progresses.

Warrior classes are outright expected to have level appropriate magically enhanced arms and armor. Skillful characters like the rogue are expected to acquire various items to directly improve their skill modifiers and to supplement them with synergistic abilities and casters are expected to get wands, staves, and pearls of power to supplement either their limited spells known or limited spell slots or, in the case of partial casters, both. -Everyone- is expected to acquire items to enhance their primary ability score and saving throw bonuses.

Because these assumptions were made, it's actually very difficult for even mid-level characters to overcome level appropriate obstacles, to hit the target numbers necessary to do so, without such equipment. To ensure that these items were acquired, the treasure tables were generated in such a way that you can give a reward for a challenge overcome that is appropriate to the CR of that obstacle and to the PCs continued growth at every level of play. The WBL guidelines were put in place to help a GM monitor the PCs total wealth in magical gear so that they could determine if they were handing out too much or too little treasure.

The final step in making certain that the PCs have what they need to survive and thrive actually comes in the form of the community wealth guidelines in the world-building chapter. It is presumed by default that PCs can outright buy most common items freely if they're in a settlement large enough to accomodate the trade of such goods.


Now, one of the major design flaws in this game is that having or lacking the gear expected diproportionately effects different types of classes. Generally, classes whose primary feature is the casting of spells are affected dramatically less by having little to no magic gear than are classes for whom their primary role is to interact with the world through tools, be those tools weapons or lockpicks.

To put it more simply; a mid-level sorcerer or druid who has nothing but a spell component pouch and/or a holy symbol will have a bit more difficulty with level appropriate foes and obstacles than they might if they were fully decked out in the 10s of thousands of gold pieces worth of gear they should have but they will most likely still be able to succeed because of the inherently modular nature of spells. A mid-level rogue or barbarian with nothing but non-magical weapons and tools will find such problems either dramatically more difficult or completely insurmountable compared to if they had level appropriate gear.



For your ease of reference, the wealth by level table is on page 135 of the dungeon master's guide (DMG). The community wealth guidelines are on page 137. The treasure guidelines begin on page 51 and their relation to WBL is explained in a sidebar on page 54.



Finally, while it could be easily inferred from the guidelines listed above and, further, from the guidelines on designing monsters from the Monster Manual; that the game was designed this way has been explicitly stated by several of the game's designers on several occasions during interviews with various publications surrounding the tabletop roleplaying community.

Any GM is free to do with their game what they will, of course, but knowing that these guidelines exist for the reason that they do and how important they are to the game's design goes a long, long way toward changing or removing these assumptions in a way that does minimal damage to the game's playability.

[StSword]

Oh to whoever might be interested, I remember Malhavoc Press released a few books to give fighters a bit more oomph.

Book of Iron Might included new feat types- Arcane Battle feats for a warrior who is supernaturally good at combat, Battlemind feats that range from entering a barbarian like rage to entering a gun fu style meditative trance, and fighting style feats that you take at level one and give new options as you level up.

It also provides combat applications to a lot of skills and a stunt system.

The Book of Experimental Might 2 provides fighter domains, and reworks the feat system to make the extra feats a fighter get more impressive- double feats, oblation feats, and uberfeats, and feats that give an extra bonus if you get them as a fighter bonus feat.

That one I'm a tad fuzzy on, since it's been a while and I don't have my book with me.

[Melcar]

The problem as far as I can tell is that the rules are doing a more or less competent job of modeling certain fantasy archetypes, unfortunately some those archetypes are capable of far more impressive feats than others. When you start trying to twiddle with the rules in an effort to create balance you almost always either don't create balance, or create balance by making the rules no longer represent the intended archetypes. In short, there's virtually no way to make a fighter just as capable as a wizard without turning into something that is not a fighter.

I think this ^^^ pretty much hits the nail on the head!

[AvatarVecna]

I think this ^^^ pretty much hits the nail on the head!

Indeed. The closest I've seen is maybe the PF 3rd party "Spheres Of Power/Might" system. Casters in general are brought down to high 3/low 2, with some particular builds creeping into 1, but generally going for too much versatility spreads you too thin to be super-powerful at any one particular thing, so often a specialization in a couple thematically-linked kinds of magic makes for a fitting mage. Makes it harder to play a proper archmage without really focusing on it but ehhhhh. And then martials are very generally speaking buffed up a good bit with the SoM spheres generally into the high 4/low 3 range - not only getting more feat-equivalent abilities than usual, but having about 700 from 25 spheres to choose from, and most whatever you come up with will end up pretty interesting to play because the system is designed to incentivize playstyles besides "I stand still and full attack again", and most of them get slightly better as you level. I wouldn't say balance is perfect in Spheres by a far shot, but it seems to do a good job of beefing up noncasters without turning them into psuedocasters.

[Efrate]

I think that there are better fighterish classes than fighter. Fighter as a class poorly executes the fighter concept. Path of War or ToB classes are better at executing the fighter concept.

It boils down to how often you cannot actually fight. When circumstances limit your ability to perceive or to reach the enemy to attack you, you cannot contribute. If you are not getting full attacks off every turn your damage falls off drastically past level 6. If you fail a save (generally will) you also cannot do anything.

Both subsystems have options that give you more options to overcome those times. Swift action movement (in 3 dimensions), alternate sensory methods, save replacement effects, and pounce equivalents all are needed and fighter does not get access to any of them.

[Mordaedil]

What fighters really lack are solutions to problems. The fighters pool of abilities unique to them is the number of feats they get, while it is class abilities for martial classes like paladins, rangers and barbarians.

Having fighter bonus feats that can solve problems or provide versatility for the fighter would go a long way to help them. Trade attack bonus for skill bonuses, allow them AOE effects from smashing the ground etc.

Paladins and rangers need boosts to their specific abilities, like favored enemy and smite evil and probably more uses and applications for their powers.

Now, Tome of Battle is infamous for being the go-to example, but it doesn't address the core issue of fixing the fighter as-is. The main problem in D&D is that the game has 3 sources of power; feats, skills and spells. And Skills and Feats are piss-weak. Skills even more so than feats. And this is why rogues and fighters suffer greatly. And rogues are sort of redeemed by getting sneak attack that sort of allows the rogue to still perform in an area outside of their ideal "expertise".

Monks require basically a complete rewrite to save. They might as well get fly speed instead of slow fall and it still wouldn't make them good.

[DMVerdandi]

I'd just overhaul all the classes. From a pathfinder standpoint, I think that there is enough variety for most of the classes, but I'd just freely give the path of war alternative class features.

If it was straight 3.5, I'd switch the core.

1.Fighter.
Have the fighter prepare maneuvers from all schools, not unlike a wizard. Can learn maneuvers from martial scripts. Also Gestalted with Artificer. So fighter becomes the master of fighting, and creating the tools of war, rather than being beholden to others [Think Sigurd and Hrunting]

2.Druid/Spirit shaman/Ranger Gestalted. animist.

3. Cleric/Crusader/Archivist Gestalted. wis+Cha for spells.All divine spells short of Druid and Ranger.

4.Unarmed swordsage,Ninja and Erudite Gestalted. Now MONK. Int+Wis for powers.
Sudden strike, and ninja class features become shadow hand maneuvers. Sudden strike in particular being a stance. all psionic powers accessible.

5. Barbarian and shadowcaster Gestalted into Rogue. Get shadow hand, diamond mind, and tiger claw.
Barbarian class features become tiger claw maneuvers.

6.Bard and Marshal Gestalted into wizard. Bardic inspiration songs get turned into martial auras That have chanting component or they go inert.Big focus on the power of words. truenamer fluff.
Can cast all arcane spells as bard. Changes spells prepared with concentration check. No spellbooks.
Also can use war weaver's web as a greater aura.

7.Sorcerer, Warlock and Binder Gestalted. Now Atavist.
Binding gives access to vestiges that unlock genetic potential of host.Each creature type has a vestige. Basically each vestige gives a whole focused spell list, some at will invocations, and other normal bonuses.
As normal, when a vestige is not bound, they don't have access to any of the powers.

8. Magic of Incarnum gets all thrown into one class. Incarnate. Access to all soulmelds.

Finally, for the characters that are not fighters but get maneuvers, they would have to pick one school they know, and they only get maneuvers from level 6-9 in the chosen school. Only the fighter would have access to all of them.


This would be high powered as heck, and enemies would probably need some buffing after level 3, but it would be high flying, and everyone kind of gets reinforced, as well as all having REALLY different systems for each as far as powers go.

Everyone can contribute, and even moreso, they contribute in radically different ways and with different systems.

[upho]

The problem as far as I can tell is that the rules are doing a more or less competent job of modeling certain fantasy archetypes, unfortunately some those archetypes are capable of far more impressive feats than others. When you start trying to twiddle with the rules in an effort to create balance you almost always either don't create balance, or create balance by making the rules no longer represent the intended archetypes. In short, there's virtually no way to make a fighter just as capable as a wizard without turning into something that is not a fighter.True, but why not simply slightly stretch/alter especially the archetypes intended to be represented by the weakest non-casters? Or more precisely, why not alter said classes to better represent different suitable archetypes depending on their level?

In other words, a 5th level fighter should still represent the classic Fafhrd- or Conan-ish martial hero archetypes, but a 15th level fighter should instead represent the (arguably more) classic Hercules-, Cú Chulainn- or Hulk-ish martial superhero archetypes.


This is what I was getting at in my original comment. If you add much more broad utility to maneuvers, you've suddenly just got another kind of wizard on your hands. Imo all the best solutions for balancing casters and mundanes are the ones that knock casters down a couple pegs. I believe this is the case because wizards and their ilk can exist at a much broader range of "power levels" while still accurately representing a caster archetype.I largely agree. Though from a design PoV, I'd say another large issue with casters - more so in 3.5 than in PF - is that there are a dozen different spells providing a dozen different solutions to each and every conceivable adventuring problem (and quite few inconceivable ones). Which means it's darn difficult to design a martial ability which doesn't provide a solution to a certain problem which isn't also very similar to one or more existing spell. Which in turn means it's darn difficult to design especially any actually useful higher level martial abilities which doesn't also risk being called "a spell in disguise" and/or the martial using it "just another kind of wizard". I mean, some people even believe ToB and PoW options make martials "too similar to casters", despite the obvious major differences between maneuvers/initiating and spells/vancian, not to mention that the vast majority of maneuvers provide only combat benefits.

By reducing especially the ridiculous out of combat versatility full casters can gain, increasing the design space for new and distinctly unique abilities increasing the same versatility for martials, I believe a large majority of the causes for C/MD issues could be removed without necessarily turning the martials into psuedocasters. At least in mid-/high-op PF games with access to PoW, psionics and Akashic (3.5 and PF games limited to 1PP material would also need a bunch of notably stronger martial combat abilities).


A couple examples that I think do this particularly well are Spheres of Power, and Grod_The_Giant's fixed list caster homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5)). These both preserve the thematic trappings of the caster archetype while both decreasing their raw power, and versatility.
Indeed. The closest I've seen is maybe the PF 3rd party "Spheres Of Power/Might" system.I agree Spheres really does greatly improve balance, to the point of removing causes for C/MD issues from the rules themselves. However, I also think the Spheres system unfortunately provides PC builds that are very static in combat in comparison to vancian casters and PoW initiators. Basically, while Spheres does get rid of the old martial "full attack for max damage, repeat ad nauseam", the builds it enables - notably including Sphere casters - will typically still repeat their one superior "trademark" action/ability combo round after round in combat, having little means to adapt that combo between days, combats or rounds to better meet changing tactical needs.

Personally, although I really like especially the greater out of combat versatility SoM grants, in PF games I prefer the rather considerably greater mechanical variety and tactical versatility possible with PoW, psionics and akashic combined with nerfed 1PP full casters.


I think that there are better fighterish classes than fighter. Fighter as a class poorly executes the fighter concept. Path of War or ToB classes are better at executing the fighter concept.So much this.


It boils down to how often you cannot actually fight. When circumstances limit your ability to perceive or to reach the enemy to attack you, you cannot contribute. If you are not getting full attacks off every turn your damage falls off drastically past level 6. If you fail a save (generally will) you also cannot do anything.

Both subsystems have options that give you more options to overcome those times. Swift action movement (in 3 dimensions), alternate sensory methods, save replacement effects, and pounce equivalents all are needed and fighter does not get access to any of them.And so much this. I'd only like to add "action economy boosts" in general to that list of things which especially the 3.5 fighter sorely lacks in combat.


What fighters really lack are solutions to problems. The fighters pool of abilities unique to them is the number of feats they get, while it is class abilities for martial classes like paladins, rangers and barbarians.

Having fighter bonus feats that can solve problems or provide versatility for the fighter would go a long way to help them. Trade attack bonus for skill bonuses, allow them AOE effects from smashing the ground etc.This is arguably at least half of the reason why the PF fighter is so much stronger than the 3.5 fighter, PF combat feats allowing for a considerably greater number of distinctly different effective martial combat roles and styles than the 3.5 equivalents do. (The other half is that the PF fighter also gets actual unique class features, including quite a few not focused on combat.) At least in high-op games, of course these things aren't anywhere near enough to make the PF fighter actually balanced to PF full casters or let them play in the same premier combat league as PoW initiators and a few Paizo classes, but it's a start and a definite improvement from the 3.5 fighter.


Paladins and rangers need boosts to their specific abilities, like favored enemy and smite evil and probably more uses and applications for their powers.

Now, Tome of Battle is infamous for being the go-to example, but it doesn't address the core issue of fixing the fighter as-is.I think basically all of the class archetypes on this list (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/abilities-for-other-classes/) actually does much of that and more, primarily by adding initiating and secondarily by adding other strong class features to all the core non-casters.

[Melcar]

What fighters really lack are solutions to problems...

I have begun, when DM'ing (which is not often mind) to allow fighters to gestalt into another mundane class. However, only when playing in parties with tier 1 classes. Its not a perfect solution by any stretch, but it makes the fighter a little better at solving problems outside battle-rounds.

Examples are: Fighter/Barbarians, Fighter/Monk, Fighter/Rogue... etc!

[DEMON]

True, but why not simply slightly stretch/alter especially the archetypes intended to be represented by the weakest non-casters? Or more precisely, why not alter said classes to better represent different suitable archetypes depending on their level?

In other words, a 5th level fighter should still represent the classic Fafhrd- or Conan-ish martial hero archetypes, but a 15th level fighter should instead represent the (arguably more) classic Hercules-, Cú Chulainn- or Hulk-ish martial superhero archetypes.

To be fair, of the stronger "mundane" archertypes, the former two are demigods and the latter is an "irradiated freak of nature". Their abilities are hardly mundane or derived from a mundane class.

And that's the crux of the problem: It's not the Fighter's problem that he can't match up to the Wizard, it's that they play a completely different game, but are somehow present in the same one.

At that level, pure mundanes simply can't compete. Yet, some players still want to bring their Conan into an Elminster-fight.

[Katie Boundary]

1) Allow them to jump enormous distances and AoE stun anything nearby when they hit the ground
2) Give them a huge bonus detecting traps and all non-magical forms of stealth
3) Let them deflect magic missiles, fireballs, and other such projectiles with their weapon like a lightsaber
4) Grenades?
5) Let them make attacks of opportunity in response to spells that can be cast as free actions

[Peat]

To be fair, of the stronger "mundane" archertypes, the former two are demigods and the latter is an "irradiated freak of nature". Their abilities are hardly mundane or derived from a mundane class.

And that's the crux of the problem: It's not the Fighter's problem that he can't match up to the Wizard, it's that they play a completely different game, but are somehow present in the same one.

At that level, pure mundanes simply can't compete. Yet, some players still want to bring their Conan into an Elminster-fight.

I get what you're coming from, but at the same time, the existence of these examples is as much as anything an argument against high level Fighters/Martials having to be solely mundane.


In any case - giving fighters CuChulainn level abilities mostly only makes them even nastier in combat; it doesn't increase their range of problem solving abilities and options much. That I suspect lies mainly in allowing high rank skill use to be really good.

[Quertus]

I'd just overhaul all the classes. From a pathfinder standpoint, I think that there is enough variety for most of the classes, but I'd just freely give the path of war alternative class features.

If it was straight 3.5, I'd switch the core.

1.Fighter.
Have the fighter prepare maneuvers from all schools, not unlike a wizard. Can learn maneuvers from martial scripts. Also Gestalted with Artificer. So fighter becomes the master of fighting, and creating the tools of war, rather than being beholden to others [Think Sigurd and Hrunting]

2.Druid/Spirit shaman/Ranger Gestalted. animist.

3. Cleric/Crusader/Archivist Gestalted. wis+Cha for spells.All divine spells short of Druid and Ranger.

4.Unarmed swordsage,Ninja and Erudite Gestalted. Now MONK. Int+Wis for powers.
Sudden strike, and ninja class features become shadow hand maneuvers. Sudden strike in particular being a stance. all psionic powers accessible.

5. Barbarian and shadowcaster Gestalted into Rogue. Get shadow hand, diamond mind, and tiger claw.
Barbarian class features become tiger claw maneuvers.

6.Bard and Marshal Gestalted into wizard. Bardic inspiration songs get turned into martial auras That have chanting component or they go inert.Big focus on the power of words. truenamer fluff.
Can cast all arcane spells as bard. Changes spells prepared with concentration check. No spellbooks.
Also can use war weaver's web as a greater aura.

7.Sorcerer, Warlock and Binder Gestalted. Now Atavist.
Binding gives access to vestiges that unlock genetic potential of host.Each creature type has a vestige. Basically each vestige gives a whole focused spell list, some at will invocations, and other normal bonuses.
As normal, when a vestige is not bound, they don't have access to any of the powers.

8. Magic of Incarnum gets all thrown into one class. Incarnate. Access to all soulmelds.

Finally, for the characters that are not fighters but get maneuvers, they would have to pick one school they know, and they only get maneuvers from level 6-9 in the chosen school. Only the fighter would have access to all of them.


This would be high powered as heck, and enemies would probably need some buffing after level 3, but it would be high flying, and everyone kind of gets reinforced, as well as all having REALLY different systems for each as far as powers go.

Everyone can contribute, and even moreso, they contribute in radically different ways and with different systems.

That's some interesting flavor you've got. This probably deserves its own thread - maybe people would actually respond about our balance then.


I have begun, when DM'ing (which is not often mind) to allow fighters to gestalt into another mundane class. However, only when playing in parties with tier 1 classes. Its not a perfect solution by any stretch, but it makes the fighter a little better at solving problems outside battle-rounds.

Examples are: Fighter/Barbarians, Fighter/Monk, Fighter/Rogue... etc!

How's that work out at low level, when Wizards are usually falling behind anyway?

[Blue Jay]

I think a better way to go about this would be to get class abilities as if it were level^2

This was my first thought, as well. The numbers get too silly too quickly if you're throwing exponential math into the equation. But, if the fighter just gets tons and tons of feats as if he was a higher-level fighter, that increases his combat versatility in several ways. For example, he could "specialize" in four or five different forms of combat, so he'd have enough round-by-round options to mitigate many of his deficiencies and turn him into more of a problem-solver than a simple beatstick. When he can't get off his uber-charger shtick, he can fall back on swarm archery, or he can hunker down to defend a choke point with defense-oriented options, or something else.

He's still not going to have the same breadth of options as an optimized wizard has, but he'll be versatile enough that the vast majority of games won't really notice that he's fallen behind. At 20th level, he'll have something like 200 feats, which I imagine is basically all of the [fighter] feats, so he can kind of be all the warrior archetypes in one (assuming non-conflicting prereqs, of course).

[DEMON]

I get what you're coming from, but at the same time, the existence of these examples is as much as anything an argument against high level Fighters/Martials having to be solely mundane.


In any case - giving fighters CuChulainn level abilities mostly only makes them even nastier in combat; it doesn't increase their range of problem solving abilities and options much. That I suspect lies mainly in allowing high rank skill use to be really good.

I pretty much agree with the consensus. I'm neither against strongre Fighters, nor non-mundane Martials, I just don't think they necessarily need to be the same thing.

Fighters could most certainly use a leg up (e.g. +2 skill points and more class skills and/or a Bonus Feat per level, with some of them not locked to Fighter bonus feats), so they are enjoyable to play in their own right, but they don't need to become Hulk, Hercules, someone from DBZ or what have you.

They provide an option for a purely mundane class and players wanting that should keep their options. That said, players wanting their character to resemble the above mentioned archetypes, instead of Conan, Aragorn and their ilk, should also get the chance to do so, of course. I just don't share this forums obsession with the Wizard - Fighter parity, for one simple reason: This edition doesn't lock you into a particular class - with ~50 base classes and ~500 PrCs that you can mix and match at every single level, one shouldn't be hang up on choosing an inferior option at every level and trying to measure up to the stronger option. S/He should be looking for combinations that provide the desired effect.

[upho]

To be fair, of the stronger "mundane" archertypes, the former two are demigods and the latter is an "irradiated freak of nature". Their abilities are hardly mundane or derived from a mundane class.But you agree their abilities are powerful and more of the "martial" than the "caster" type, right? That's pretty much my point: a 20th level "fighter done right" should indeed have abilities at a similar demigod/superfreak power level.

Or to put it in other words, "mundane Hercules" is about as much of a blatantly obvious oxymoron as "20th level mundane PC" is. There's virtually nothing mundane about Hercules, nor about a PC with 20 levels in the hypothetical "average" PC class.

Not to mention that even at 1st level, I really believe "mundane (https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mundane)" should be a highly misleading label to put on the archetypes represented by martial classes, as well as the mechanical abilities granted by those classes. Past say 10th, describing said archetypes or martial abilities as "mundane" should be nothing but obvious irony. And even looking at your "typical" low- to mid-op builds of the existing 3.5 and PF martial classes, at least past 3rd level or so, I struggle to see how they're "mundane". And I usually fail to keep myself from laughing out loud whenever someone puts that word in the same sentence as say "high level", "high-op" and "initiator" or "PF barbarian", especially if the speaker also apparently manages to keep a straight face... :smallamused:


And that's the crux of the problem: It's not the Fighter's problem that he can't match up to the Wizard, it's that they play a completely different game, but are somehow present in the same one.Kinda. But since neither the infinitely broad non-caster archetype/character concept, or its "martial" or even "fighter" sub-concepts, come with any inherent limitations which prevent them from playing the same game as the caster archetype/character concept may, I'd say the crux is people confusing these concepts with various inherently extremely limited "guy at the gym BSF"- or "Fahfrd/Conan"-types of low level martial archetype/character concepts.
'

At that level, pure mundanes simply can't compete.Just out of curiosity, what would you say defines a "pure mundane"? Why?


Yet, some players still want to bring their Conan into an Elminster-fight.That's actually fine IMO. What isn't fine is if/when the Conan players also refuse to play level-appropriate Hercules, but still complain about poor party balance and/or demand Elminster's power and the 20th+ game's challenge difficulties are brought down to their Conan 6th-level-concept's abilities...


1) Allow them to jump enormous distances and AoE stun anything nearby when they hit the ground
2) Give them a huge bonus detecting traps and all non-magical forms of stealth
3) Let them deflect magic missiles, fireballs, and other such projectiles with their weapon like a lightsaber
4) Grenades?
5) Let them make attacks of opportunity in response to spells that can be cast as free actionsYou should probably check out PoW if you're looking for these kinds of higher level martial abilities.


I get what you're coming from, but at the same time, the existence of these examples is as much as anything an argument against high level Fighters/Martials having to be solely mundane.Precisely.


In any case - giving fighters CuChulainn level abilities mostly only makes them even nastier in combat; it doesn't increase their range of problem solving abilities and options much.Probably when it comes to Cú Chulainn, yeah. But I cannot see how similar issues would somehow reduce the viability of the basic design concept/idea, because if one archetype doesn't do it for you, you could simply replace or mix it some other powerful non-caster archetype(s) less exclusively combat focused (plenty available).


That I suspect lies mainly in allowing high rank skill use to be really good.I know quite a few Playgrounders have made own attempts - and/or have been involved in a few open group attempts - to make such a skill-based "utility spell compensation" system for non-casters. Those I've been involved in or read about have unfortunately had very little success so far, most notably because it requires many many more hours of work and far more drastic changes to the existing system than what one might first assume.

One less time-consuming option could be copying the many decent to great related abilities found in Spheres of Might, reducing the amount of work required to put together new stuff (which will most certainly still be needed, and lots of it). Maybe offering these as feats, along with giving only non-caster classes related specific feat slots every few levels?

[DEMON]

Just out of curiosity, what would you say defines a "pure mundane"? Why?

One who can be reasonably assumed to follow his world's rules of physics, despite other beings in that world being able to bend these rules to their will or ignore them. And that, by default, puts that character at a disadvantage againts those that can ignore said rules.

To give some examples that fit the bill for me: Conan, Boromir, Gawain (knights of the round table), Milva (The Witcher), most of the fairy tales' heroes of my youth (e.g. Ivan of the Father Frost story, Atreyu of the Neverending Story etc.)

[Aotrs Commander]

Fighters could most certainly use a leg up (e.g. +2 skill points and more class skills and/or a Bonus Feat per level, with some of them not locked to Fighter bonus feats), so they are enjoyable to play in their own right, but they don't need to become Hulk, Hercules, someone from DBZ or what have you.

Well, I did do that latter part anyway, though I didn't give them more skill points (BUT we are essentially using very nearly Pathfinder's skill system, so their skill points do go a bit further), and I even gave them a few special bits for certain feats.

But yeah, that's the OTHER big problem fundementally - that there are the really keen people like me who will spend literally tens or hundreds of hours playing and modifiying 3.x/PF because they love all the mechanical options - and then there's the guy who just wants to have Man With Sword and roll dice to make attack rolls, and isn't interested in competing with the mage/psion/warblade and having loads of special power and abilities (and sort of WANTS his character to be as simple as an AD&D fighter). Or they don't play regularly enough. (If you play maybe once or twice a year...)

Which is why I didn't go too mad with my fighter upgrade, keeping at least one class (I'd have said others, but the last chunk of the afoementioned tens-to-hundreds has been porting all the PF rogue talants and such across!) which doens't require a lot of mechanical game knowledge. (I do, of course, ensure that we that is desired, we make sure we keep the numbers optimised for that desired effect.) If someone wants to do something more than that, that's why... Actually, I think you're right, my 3.5/PF hybrid DOES have 50 classes (and we don't tend to use PrC much, to be honest), so there's always multiclassing.

(Fighter is, I think, the second-most common dip class after Swordsage in our parties.)



(It is, of course, fine for us, since the paradigm I use tends to always give the fighter something to hit - heck, the only party we had hit low Epic had a pure fighter, and he did alright for himself!)

[RatElemental]

One who can be reasonably assumed to follow his world's rules of physics, despite other beings in that world being able to bend these rules to their will or ignore them. And that, by default, puts that character at a disadvantage againts those that can ignore said rules.

To give some examples that fit the bill for me: Conan, Boromir, Gawain (knights of the round table), Milva (The Witcher), most of the fairy tales' heroes of my youth (e.g. Ivan of the Father Frost story, Atreyu of the Neverending Story etc.)

I mean, in a world where magic exists, wouldn't magic be part of the world's physics? This is like defining 'pure mundane' as anyone from our world who has no access to modern technology that can among other things make you able to fly, freeze things in the dead of summer, reshape powdery material into a solid object and purify water instantly.

[frogglesmash]

I mean, in a world where magic exists, wouldn't magic be part of the world's physics? This is like defining 'pure mundane' as anyone from our world who has no access to modern technology that can among other things make you able to fly, freeze things in the dead of summer, reshape powdery material into a solid object and purify water instantly.

I thought it was pretty clear that they were referring to individuals without the inherent ability to use magical abilities. While your comments are technically accurate, they strike me as needlessly pedantic, and they don't seem to contribute to the conversation in a productive manner.

[Sereg]

I thought it was pretty clear that they were referring to individuals without the inherent ability to use magical abilities. While your comments are technically accurate, they strike me as needlessly pedantic, and they don't seem to contribute to the conversation in a productive manner.

Actually, I agree with them. Them not using magic is not the same as them not benefitting from it or being able to interact with it. Just like I don't have to be able to build technology to benefit from it.

This is is why I say martials should be able to learn to grab teleports out the air, stab a caster through the spell that gave them their minion, charge anywhere in line of sight as an immediate action, smash through force effects, jump between continents, run on water, smash the ground to create earthquakes, wave their arms to change the weather, smash through walls in a charge, smash traps, burrow and scream loud enough to be a breath weapon. Their use of armour and weapons makes them good at carrying, their need to aim makes them good at spot, listen and search, their badassery makes them good at intimidate, their knowledge of anatomy should make them effective healers, and their knowledge of their arms and armour as well as breaking stuff should make them excellent crafters. A fighter should be able to do all of this and still be a fighter.

For high level fighters, the archetypes they should be representing is superheroes like Flash, Hulk and Thor.

[RatElemental]

I thought it was pretty clear that they were referring to individuals without the inherent ability to use magical abilities. While your comments are technically accurate, they strike me as needlessly pedantic, and they don't seem to contribute to the conversation in a productive manner.

Wizards, one of the most castery archetypes to ever cast, aren't inherently magical either. They just learn how to use magic the same way a fighter learns how to use a sword. Take away their book and toss them in a dungeon, and they stop being able to cast.

My point was that at higher levels, you really can't expect to not be using magic at all, I don't think that makes martials any less martial. Whether they're still mundane or not, well, I don't think it really matters.

[frogglesmash]

Wizards, one of the most castery archetypes to ever cast, aren't inherently magical either. They just learn how to use magic the same way a fighter learns how to use a sword. Take away their book and toss them in a dungeon, and they stop being able to cast.

My point was that at higher levels, you really can't expect to not be using magic at all, I don't think that makes martials any less martial. Whether they're still mundane or not, well, I don't think it really matters.

You're conflating "inherent"with "innate," while still engaging in needless pedantry, and missing the point of the discussion. We're talking about general trends concerning character archetypes, and their comparative power. We're not discussing how the definitions of those archetypes breakdown with certain specific edge cases.
If you really need a hyper accurate definition, casters are characters whose access to magical abilities is achieved primarily through character build, and not through gear. The less this applies to a given character, the more "mundane" that character is. Now I'm sure you can find some examples that don't quite work with my definition, but the very fact that you can provide those examples demonstrated an understanding of the idea I am trying to convey, which is all that is necessary for a productive conversation.

[Mr Adventurer]

The distinction is completely pointless, something which I am pleased that the Tome of Battle recognised.

[RatElemental]

You're conflating "inherent"with "innate," while still engaging in needless pedantry, and missing the point of the discussion. We're talking about general trends concerning character archetypes, and their comparative power. We're not discussing how the definitions of those archetypes breakdown with certain specific edge cases.
If you really need a hyper accurate definition, casters are characters whose access to magical abilities is achieved primarily through character build, and not through gear. The less this applies to a given character, the more "mundane" that character is. Now I'm sure you can find some examples that don't quite work with my definition, but the very fact that you can provide those examples demonstrated an understanding of the idea I am trying to convey, which is all that is necessary for a productive conversation.

My point all along was to try and either show that 'mundane' is a silly concept to apply to DND characters, or to help refine the definition. You've actually just provided a workable definition that, no, wasn't clear all along to everyone. So thank you for that.

The question now, then, is whether mundane as you just defined it is workable in the game, or whether it would even be desirable to do so. And if so, how to go about doing that. I take the position that in high level DND, mundane as it's usually defined, has no place. You're fighting beings from beyond mortal ken at that point, and have long since transcended the physical limits of normal people.

[DEMON]

I mean, in a world where magic exists, wouldn't magic be part of the world's physics? This is like defining 'pure mundane' as anyone from our world who has no access to modern technology that can among other things make you able to fly, freeze things in the dead of summer, reshape powdery material into a solid object and purify water instantly.

Not necessarily. To assume magic in every setting is like a modern era's smartphone and everyone has access to it just does not apply as broadly as you portray it.
The examples I gave above are all actual characters from fantasy settings where magic exists, that do not possess any innate magical abilities, yet, in several cases, they are the main heroes.

Some people are drawn to these kinds of characters. And while they may not fit into every group and every story, their existence is just as valid an argument for mundane characters in even high fantasy settings, as are the powerhouses mentioned by other posters an argument for much more powerful "mundane" characters.

Yes, a Fighter is a weak class and can't compete with the top tier classes at high levels, where magic is the answer to pretty much anything. All classes are not created equal.
But do they have to be? As I've mentioned before, 3.5 is a flexible system and does not lock you into a single class for your whole career. Fighter 20 is not the answer for the people that want to play Hulk, it simply isn't. I'm not arguing that, I just don't believe it should be, or rather needs to be. Those players should look elsewhere, since they have other options that fit their bill.

As Aotrs Commander has said:



and then there's the guy who just wants to have Man With Sword and roll dice to make attack rolls, and isn't interested in competing with the mage/psion/warblade and having loads of special power and abilities

Which I will follow up with upho's quote:



That's actually fine IMO. What isn't fine is if/when the Conan players also refuse to play level-appropriate Hercules, but still complain about poor party balance and/or demand Elminster's power and the 20th+ game's challenge difficulties are brought down to their Conan 6th-level-concept's abilities...

[ThatMoonGuy]

So my question is: being able to cut three mountaintops with just your strength alone is mundane? Or is that too much? Because if mundane strictly means "not much higher than the limits of a real human" then... Yeah. That ain't got no place in high level.

Well, you see, the problem is that there is no superhuman fighter class in D&D (or Pathfinder for that matter). Even the thing people say that comes closer (PoW and ToB to a far lesser extent) is far from being anywhere equal to a Wizard in game changing potential. So if I don't want to play a Wizard in a high level game my only option then is to either go full Christmas tree or to not play at all?

That's bad game design if you ask me.

[frogglesmash]

Y'all are conflating "mundane" with "realistic." In this context "mundane" refers specifically to a lack magical ability.

[Lans]

This was my first thought, as well. The numbers get too silly too quickly if you're throwing exponential math into the equation. But, if the fighter just gets tons and tons of feats as if he was a higher-level fighter, that increases his combat versatility in several ways. For example, he could "specialize" in four or five different forms of combat, so he'd have enough round-by-round options to mitigate many of his deficiencies and turn him into more of a problem-solver than a simple beatstick. When he can't get off his uber-charger shtick, he can fall back on swarm archery, or he can hunker down to defend a choke point with defense-oriented options, or something else.

He's still not going to have the same breadth of options as an optimized wizard has, but he'll be versatile enough that the vast majority of games won't really notice that he's fallen behind. At 20th level, he'll have something like 200 feats, which I imagine is basically all of the [fighter] feats, so he can kind of be all the warrior archetypes in one (assuming non-conflicting prereqs, of course).



Another idea would be to 'gestalt' in other low tier classes. So every level you get another class. Let's say you need to grab T5 and lower, and nothing more magical than a paladin

I think you will run out of T5 classes at around level 10, so just add in lower tier 4 classes from there

[Anachronity]

A lot of the most busted caster stuff is the stuff that doesn't really care about numbers, or gives the user extremely high numbers. This fix would only solve the latter sort of problem, but would also introduce so very many more problems.

But what's important to note about casters is that they also have a low floor in addition to a high ceiling. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing or who wants to play their T2 caster as a T4 character can totally do that, and can even more or less lock themselves into that playstyle.

If you were to follow through with this idea in a real game, you would find that your quadratic fighters would not have that low floor. Numbers are numbers and theirs are astronomical. Damage doesn't really scale without feats, but defenses do. Any caster would be forced to bust out the cheese in order to keep up, since if those 9th and 16th level fighters are ever allowed to swing for damage against your frail 3rd or 4th level wizard body it's totally over. Also hitpoints, saves, and so on are so high that your only effective options become those that don't care about either.


I think this idea might actually work though if you limit the exponential growth only to feats. So a 5th level fighter would have 9 feats from levels and 13 bonus combat feats (as per a 25th-level fighter), but the BAB/saves/Hit Dice/etc. of a 5th-level character (though they could also take epic feats). At that point I'd say they're pretty similar to a sorcerer; you can take the gamebreaker options or you can squander your many feats on thematics, but it's hard to change your choice once made without one of a few notoriously cheesy effects that most GMs won't flippantly allow.

Even then they probably still come out ahead in the earlier levels (unless your table is particularly cutthroat) while falling behind at the much later levels (I don't think any one feat or even any feat chain allows a fighter to compete with a typical strong 6th-level spell)

[Sereg]

This is roughly what I do:

Full attacks are now standard actions.

Iteratives have their penalties capped at minus 5, but they still accrue.

People get penalties for reaching 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 hp, as well as using up their spells. These stack. (For spells, this eventually results in fatigue and exhaustion that bypasses immunities)

Things previously immune to precision damage now take half precision damage.

Spells that replace skills now instead provide bonuses to them.

Transforming into another creature changes the racial adjustments of your ability scores instead of the ability scores themselves.

Natural Spell is a metamagic feat that raises level by one.

Most classes increase their skill points. Especially "mundanes" and "skillmonkeys".

Favoured class allows bonus hp or skill points like in early pathfinder.

Feat acquisition is raised to pathfinder rates.

Fighters get a good will save and their choice of good fort or reflex save.

Fighters gain a bonus fighter feat every level, except for first, where they get two and twentieth where they get three.

Every level, fighters can also replace one of their old fighter feats with a new one. If they lose a feat that is a prerequisite for a prestige class or feat, they keep all the benefits of that feat despite having replaced it.

Fighters add their class level to their skill ranks they are trained in for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites. They add half their class level to their abilities for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for feats.

They gain full initiator progression and when they chose Martial Strike and Martial Stance as bonus fighter feats, it does not count towards their limit of number of times they can take those feats.

They gain other class features per level as well and their are feats that can replicate the effects I mentioned earlier.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So my question is: being able to cut three mountaintops with just your strength alone is mundane? Or is that too much? Because if mundane strictly means "not much higher than the limits of a real human" then... Yeah. That ain't got no place in high level.

Yes, cutting the tops off of mountains is too far. Equivalent spellcasting feats are the realm of epic spells.

The other extreme of "barely better than a real human" is, indeed, too low but it's also not the case for non-casters as it stands. Even the simplest example, making a jump check, far outstrips what a real human being can do by even mid-level without optimizing specifcially for it. When you start peppering in martial maneuvers you go well into appropriate territory for what a non-caster character should be able to do at high levels.

Take a warblade level 18 or higher. His two L9 maneuvers are strike of perfect clarity and feral deathblow and he knows white raven tactics from much earlier in his career. His foe; a titan. In the -first- turn of combat, he moves in, executes the feral deathblow and the titan must immediately save or die. If it does, it takes [w]+70ish damage, prompting a massive damage save. If it survives that (likely) the warblade immediately uses wrt to shift his initiative to take one more turn in which he delivers the strike of perfect clarity, doing [w]+100 damage and forcing the titan to make a 2nd massive damage save.

That is to say; in the first round of combat he does something like more than half its health in damage and made it save 3 times vs dying on the spot.

The titan, in return, would have to be a fool to not fall back and rely on his innate magic rather than try to stand and trade blows with this tiny mortal. Even if the warblade has nothing but non-magical gear he's posing a serious threat to an epic CR creature of myth. I don't remember Hercules threatening Chronos in the old stories.

The problem for balance never has been that high-level warriors can't fight adequately to their role. That's just a skewed idea that springs from forum users that see everything through the lens of high-op casters. The problem always has been that warriors don't do much outside of fighting. A clever player might find ways to apply their prodigious combat abilities to non-combat problems but you're still trying to turn a screw with a hammer when what you really need is a screwdriver.




Well, you see, the problem is that there is no superhuman fighter class in D&D (or Pathfinder for that matter). Even the thing people say that comes closer (PoW and ToB to a far lesser extent) is far from being anywhere equal to a Wizard in game changing potential.

These statements are incongruent. There very much are superhuman warriors in both games and the sources mentioned go a long way towards pushing them even further from realistic humans. Merely being of superhuman capability, however, is nothing like adequate to reaching the game-changing potential of a caster. That's a different goal post altogether. That requires the ability to directly warp the fabric of reality itself.

To put it in perspective, you're asking why it is that The Incredible Hulk can't deal with the same type of problems as Doctor Strange.



So if I don't want to play a Wizard in a high level game my only option then is to either go full Christmas tree or to not play at all?

This one's a pet-peeve, to be totally honest. Yes, you are expected to have the christmas tree of magical gear. The wizard is too. WBL is a fundamental assumption that the game was built around. Dispensing with it and then whining that you can't do everything that might be expected of you is like stripping the interior out of your car so it'll go a little faster and then complaining about how it's not really comfortable to ride in anymore.


That's bad game design if you ask me.

That's not a fault in the system, it's a design choice that you don't like for aesthetic reasons.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Yes, cutting the tops off of mountains is too far. Equivalent spellcasting feats are the realm of epic spells.



Create demiplane, Wish, Gate, Planar Binding and many other things are not epic level and are certainly in the "miraculously powerful" level. The hilltop example comes from myth (I believe it was about Fergus MacRoich). Even if you take severely weaker abilities you still have guys like Samson taking down the temple and killing hundreds of enemies with the jawbone of a donkey.

Obviously the casters are not mundane in capacity. They can jump farther than an athlete, that's for sure. But it's by no means to the same scale that a Wizard or Cleric can do. Again, suppose a Fighter 20 can jump 100 meters by 20 (which I don't think they can, at least not easily). By that point, Wizard has been teleporting the whole party across the world and through the planes for a few levels. Wizard 20 can stop time while Fighter 20 hits real well with his sword. Given, is be totally ok with just "hitting real well" if it was on a level comparable to what the Wizard is doing (which, just to remind again, includes teleporting to the other side of the world).

As for Maneuvers, I know well what they can do. The PoW ones are even stronger than the ones in ToB and are a good place to start getting things right. The issue lies in that the way those things interact with the world isn't clear and, thus, the impact of such abilities is limited to combat. I have no doubt that martials can be good in combat. Outside of it, though, they don't have anything that can compare to what a Wizard can do.

Now, again, I don't expect a Fighter to be a Wizard by another name. There must be things one can do that the other can't. But being superhuman can be useful in and on itself as long as the interactions for so are well defined. If I have superhuman vision maybe I can watch a target from kilometers away with incredible precision which would be incredibly useful for investigation. Same if I could hear a pin falling from that same distance. Those are not spells but are superhuman abilities that could be useful in a number of contexts.

As for WBL, sorry. It's bad design. And it's bad design because it affects the martial classes way more than the Spellcasters. The fact that the fighter has no built in ability to deal with flying, invisible or any other series of unconventional enemies means he has to spend money on that. He needs magical gear in order to even function while Casters don't. Take away all the WBL of a Wizard and of a Fighter and see which one of them can still function and which one is gonna be a sitting duck. Because you have to spend money to even function, you have less money for cool and weird things, which restricts variation. And that's not even talking about how certain character concepts get totally screwed over (say hello, Vow of Poverty Monk). WBL didn't even need to exist. Someone simply decided that it had to be like this so, yeah, it's the fault of the system that Fighters have to spend all their money to remain viable while Wizards don't have to.

So the fact that WBL is a requirement has a lot of downsides with exactly what of an upside? Honestly, getting rid of magical item dependence was one of the few things 5e did well.

[Quertus]

As for WBL, sorry. It's bad design. And it's bad design because it affects the martial classes way more than the Spellcasters. The fact that the fighter has no built in ability to deal with flying, invisible or any other series of unconventional enemies means he has to spend money on that. He needs magical gear in order to even function while Casters don't.

Flying? Bow, flying mount, diplomacy, stealth… lasso? harpoon? Running away?

Invisible? Bag of flour.

Other? Caster friend. :smalltongue: (really, it depends on the "other")


WBL didn't even need to exist. Someone simply decided that it had to be like this so, yeah, it's the fault of the system that Fighters have to spend all their money to remain viable while Wizards don't have to.


So the fact that WBL is a requirement has a lot of downsides with exactly what of an upside? Honestly, getting rid of magical item dependence was one of the few things 5e did well.

If I want to create a new 15th level character, what magic items is it fair for him to start out with? Don't give me WBL tables, and I'm free to choose anything between "nothing" and, well, "everything, 5 copies of each". Isn't WBL better design than that?

[Elves]

As for WBL, sorry. It's bad design. And it's bad design because it affects the martial classes way more than the Spellcasters.

The part of WBL that's bad design is specifically the expected +AC, +save, and +attack bonuses from gear. The MIC designers recognized how this handicapped gear design and tried to patch it over with the rules for adding those bonuses to other items, but that doesn't fix the problem fully or fundamentally.

It's probably even worse design than stuff like 4e's +1/2 level mod, which is at least automatic and easy to remove.

I don't think WBL is inherently bad design though. Just look at the crapshoot caused in 5e by removing it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Create demiplane, Wish, Gate, Planar Binding and many other things are not epic level and are certainly in the "miraculously powerful" level. The hilltop example comes from myth (I believe it was about Fergus MacRoich). Even if you take severely weaker abilities you still have guys like Samson taking down the temple and killing hundreds of enemies with the jawbone of a donkey.

You notice how all your miracles there come with a substantial personal cost? Without going into optimization shenannigans territory, you can't do any of those examples with any real frequency. You might cast them in the handful of levels between when they become available and reaching epic levels unless you want to severely retard your growth toward becoming epic. You'll also note that removing a mountaintop -as a wizard- requires epic magic, per the creation of the floating cities of Netheril in FR.


Obviously the casters are not mundane in capacity. They can jump farther than an athlete, that's for sure. But it's by no means to the same scale that a Wizard or Cleric can do. Again, suppose a Fighter 20 can jump 100 meters by 20 (which I don't think they can, at least not easily). By that point, Wizard has been teleporting the whole party across the world and through the planes for a few levels. Wizard 20 can stop time while Fighter 20 hits real well with his sword. Given, is be totally ok with just "hitting real well" if it was on a level comparable to what the Wizard is doing (which, just to remind again, includes teleporting to the other side of the world).

I refer you back to my hulk/ doctor strange comparison. Why would you expect the hulk to be able to do the equivalent of teleporting at any level? The ability to punch a hole in reality is -way- beyond the pale for someone who isn't wielding magic at least indirectly. The only example I can think of in fiction where that was done by a completely non-magical being was Gotenks in Dragonball Z screaming a hole into the boundary of what would be conisdered a demiplane in D&D terms and that was pure plot-device that was only ever done by him and one other (definitely magical) character once each.

If you want to be a superhuman badass, the game represents that just fine. If you want to tell the fabric of space-time to sit down, shut up, and do what it's told; that's not a warrior trope. That's not a rogueish scoundrel trope. That's a wizards and priests trope.



As for Maneuvers, I know well what they can do. The PoW ones are even stronger than the ones in ToB and are a good place to start getting things right. The issue lies in that the way those things interact with the world isn't clear and, thus, the impact of such abilities is limited to combat. I have no doubt that martials can be good in combat. Outside of it, though, they don't have anything that can compare to what a Wizard can do.

The hardness and HPs of objects are reasonably well defined. It's not difficult to figure out how much wall you can destroy with an ancient mountain hammer. Some of the epic skill DCs are well within reach of non-epic characters and allow a character to do properly astonishing feats. The problem is, as I said before, not that the rules aren't defined but that they're not typically applicable outside of battle. Splitting a boulder with your bare fist is really impressive but unless it's conveniently blocking an important passage or damming a river or something of that ilk, it's not super useful.


Now, again, I don't expect a Fighter to be a Wizard by another name. There must be things one can do that the other can't. But being superhuman can be useful in and on itself as long as the interactions for so are well defined. If I have superhuman vision maybe I can watch a target from kilometers away with incredible precision which would be incredibly useful for investigation. Same if I could hear a pin falling from that same distance. Those are not spells but are superhuman abilities that could be useful in a number of contexts.

Those DCs aren't difficult to set even if your examples are a bit extreme. Did you know if you can get to where you can reliably hit DC 80 with both spot and listen you become functionally immune to illusions? Link (http://d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm) You say you don't expect warriors to be wizards by another name but the feats you seem to want them to perform are certainly beyond what could reasonably be construed as anything less than magical. Who in fiction has the ability to see minute detail from kilometers away?


As for WBL, sorry. It's bad design. And it's bad design because it affects the martial classes way more than the Spellcasters. The fact that the fighter has no built in ability to deal with flying, invisible or any other series of unconventional enemies means he has to spend money on that. He needs magical gear in order to even function while Casters don't. Take away all the WBL of a Wizard and of a Fighter and see which one of them can still function and which one is gonna be a sitting duck. Because you have to spend money to even function, you have less money for cool and weird things, which restricts variation. And that's not even talking about how certain character concepts get totally screwed over (say hello, Vow of Poverty Monk). WBL didn't even need to exist. Someone simply decided that it had to be like this so, yeah, it's the fault of the system that Fighters have to spend all their money to remain viable while Wizards don't have to.

It does effect the martial classes more than the casters. I can't and won't deny that. The idea that the casters can dispense with their WBL altogether is just hubristic, though. Take the titan from my example again. How long do you suppose a wizard who isn't the very definition of high-op will last, alone, with nothing but the spells in his head? Gate? The titan can do it too and take your monster for himself and didn't spend 1000xp to do it. How many chain-lightnings can you take with D4 hd and a poor reflex save?

Shroedinger's wizard has a solution to every problem. An actual wizard in play has a very limited selection of things he can do at any one time unless he shores up his class' own weaknesses with cash.


So the fact that WBL is a requirement has a lot of downsides with exactly what of an upside? Honestly, getting rid of magical item dependence was one of the few things 5e did well.

Magic items are part and parcel of the entire D&D experience and have been forever. The ability to acquire obscene amounts of wealth is one of the few things that gives verisimilitude to the idea of adventurers on the whole.

If magic items are expected, how many? What degree of power should they have? At what level is it appropriate to acquire excalibur? The Grass-cutting Sword? Hrunting? Mjolnir? Gungnir? How much of a bonus should any such weapon have? Powers beyond a bonus?

WBL generated item dependence, in part, but it also brought about the possibility of otherwise non-magical characters having access to a -lot- of the casters toys without having to multiclass.

[Aotrs Commander]

I don't think WBL is inherently bad design though. Just look at the crapshoot caused in 5e by removing it.

Or AD&D before it.

At the point that the party ended at Sigil in Die Vecna Die with something on the order of 196000k or something equally insane (that was the game where we decided we need a proper party funds sheet) or the fact that I forgot and handed out Night Below's treasure without adjustment and had to ratchet it back HARD because the PCs were able to get STUPID amounts of gear at low-level.



Not that I actually USE WBL myself EXCEPT for determining gear for above first level characters, but then again, I haven't written my own weekly campaign for probably upwards of a decade and nearly two; we've been running off coverted AD&D modules and Adventure Paths since then.

(Day quests really don't have the same issues, as one session every year or other year for a given party means they don't need to worry so much; ALSO, for my primary fantasy campaign world, I replaced all the +bonus kit with a standardised progression that EVERYONE (characters and monstes both) get with regard to weapon enhancement bonuses, resistance bonues, deflection/natural armour bonuses etc, based on an approximation of WBL, so everyone Has The Numbers and I can have a relatively low-magic campaign world. This happen simultaneously with me basically completely rebuilding the entire bestiary, mind (and tossing out Vancian casting for mana points), so it isn't like it was a change I made in isolation, or not extremely extensively.)

[Anachronity]

I don't think WBL is inherently bad design though. Just look at the crapshoot caused in 5e by removing it.I'm looking, but I don't see it?

The only issue I'm aware of is the designers pretending fighter sorts don't need a 'magic' weapon to overcome resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons to remain relevant, when they totally do. Everything else works fine to my knowledge. I'll add that I also love the attunement system as a way to prevent the christmas tree issue, even if I don't agree 100% with WotC on which items should require attunement.

Or maybe you mean Adventure League? But that sort of 'standardized' gameplay format, for a game whose whole point is to be whatever you make of it, is already a clown show in so many other ways. Pathfinder Society follows WBL but still has all the same ridiculous issues.


As for WBL in 3.5/PF1e, I'm a strong advocate for some variation or another of automatic bonus progression to just remove all that unpleasantness from the equation.

That also then leaves me free to crib 5e's attunement system rather than using the book-keeping nightmare that is body slots, leaving me free to introduce substantially stronger magic items than is typical (while weaker or more forgettable ones generally won't require attunement). Attunement also requires a short rest (~1 hour in 3.5 terms); conveniently the same amount of time a wizard takes to prepare spells! Thus by collecting a small horde of powerful items requiring attunement, the martial sorts can also adapt to the expected challenges of the day (whether they be combat challenges or otherwise).

[AvatarVecna]

I'm looking, but I don't see it?

The only issue I'm aware of is the designers pretending fighter sorts don't need a 'magic' weapon to overcome resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons to remain relevant, when they totally do. Everything else works fine to my knowledge. I'll add that I also love the attunement system as a way to prevent the christmas tree issue, even if I don't agree 100% with WotC on which items should require attunement.

The designers don't pretend the fighter doesn't need a magic weapon, they more point out that the fighter shouldn't feel like they're owed one by the system - and 99% of the time, they can make do without it. Resistance to non-magic weapon damage isn't common, but it's not uncommon either, but it's something they can power through. Similarly, immunity to nonmagic weapon damage is almost nonexistent, at least in that pure state - there's about a dozen monsters in the Monster Manual that have it, and of those dozen, like three can't have it bypassed with a material. Even then, the spell "Magic Weapon" can still suffice if the DM has decided that magic items are not a thing that's happening in-game.

That's not to say that "the game balance assumes no magic items" can't ruin balance, but because it's designed around that assumption, there's only a very small handful of things that maybe break when it's true, and far more common is things breaking when it's not true. Encounters balanced around the damage one can expect from magic-item-less parties become weighted in the party's favor when magic items are thrown in the mix, and more so the more powerful or the more numerous those items are. Meanwhile in 3.5, such items are...assumed, expected. "WBL exists" doesn't break the balance of 3.5 because 3.5 is balanced around it, at least as best as it can be, and the absence of such wealth in a 3.5 game can cause massive balance shifts that very much do not favor the PCs.

EDIT: I forgot to mention why this constitutes calling it a "crapshoot", and the short answer is that removing magic items from the game is kinda like removing bards; yes the game could get along fine without them, but bards are like, classic maaaaan. It's sorta like how "feats are an optional rule" is a joke in 5e: yes, technically, feats are an optional rule, but feats are such an integral part of what D&D has ever been, that unless you only just joined the D&D community as part of 5e's popularity, "feats are available" is your assumed default. In much the same way "magic items exist, and can be crafted, or purchased, or at the very least found" is too. And while the DMG lays down guidelines for what a DM might hand their party in terms of magic items, their adventure modules don't exactly do a good job of sticking by those guidelines...because the people writing the adventures have an idea of what D&D looks like in their head, and it involves a higher frequency of magic items than 5e is built around.

[Aotrs Commander]

but feats are such an integral part of what D&D has ever been,

Point of order - only in the past 19 years; prior to 3.0, AD&D didn't have them.

I mean, they're too much of a good idea to lose, in my opinion; but 5E seems to be more going for "that old AD&D relatively rules-light feel but doesn't mechanicaly suck monkey balls."

(Sorry grognards, the fact everyone can and often did have fun playing with AD&D as the system(myself included at the time) doesn't change the fact the system was mechanically frackin' awful; the fact in all the times I HAVE played it over the years under different DMs, not a one of us used it without moderate to heavy house-rules...)

I mean, 5E seems to work well enough from my experience (solely limited to listening to some D&D twitch/youtube stuff) and is probably best placed for that sort of thing where you don't want the DM to be checking the rules up like a pedant like I would; mind you, I always said 4E was a perfectly fine mechanical system that did exaxctly what it intended to do, just what it intended to do and what I wanted it to do were entirely at opposites.)

This has been your "Bleakbane Blithers At Random" for the week day hour ten-minute interval.

[AvatarVecna]

I always said 4E was a perfectly fine mechanical system that did exaxctly what it intended to do, just what it intended to do and what I wanted it to do were entirely at opposites.)

See and I always saw 4e as a wish granted by a monkey's paw, an attempt to solve the problems bemoaned about 3.5 for years and years online. It was all the mechanical complexity, all the freedom of choice that 3.5 had boasted, but in a system that made breaking out of your assigned power level and role difficult - both in becoming "too weak" and "too strong". Here, the fighters were stronger and the wizards were weaker, achieving the desired balanced in a...desired manner?

Of course, "lots of choices that can't really change much of anything" ended up with an edition that was relatively homogeneous: all controllers were "Dr Pepper" or "Dr Thunder" or "Mr Pibb", all Leaders were "Sprite" or "Sierra Mist" or "7-Up", and Defenders were "skim milk" or "whole milk" or "2% milk", with not a chocolate milk or soy milk in sight. The only role that got any real mechanical flexibility was Striker: avengers were highly accurate against their target of choice, barbarians had more powerful charges and could self-buff, monks had limited AoE damage, rogues had high single-target damage...but at the end of the day, it could still end up feeling like choosing between beer, wine, ale, and absinthe: you're gonna be ****ed up at the end of the night either way, what difference does it make exactly how you got there? Everything besides role wasn't actually pointless, but it was close enough to provoke that feeling intensely in a lot of people.

Because people want a balanced 3.5, but there's a not-insignificant portion of the community that is convinced fighters don't need to be better, wizards just need to tone it down, while another part insists that wizards are achieving what they should be based fantasy realism, and that fighters need to either go full anime or admit that they're not actually playing at the same level.

[Aotrs Commander]

See and I always saw 4e as a wish granted by a monkey's paw, an attempt to solve the problems bemoaned about 3.5 for years and years online. It was all the mechanical complexity, all the freedom of choice that 3.5 had boasted, but in a system that made breaking out of your assigned power level and role difficult - both in becoming "too weak" and "too strong". Here, the fighters were stronger and the wizards were weaker, achieving the desired balanced in a...desired manner?

Yeah, that's what I meant by it achieving exactly what it set out to do. And in achieving that goal, it did it very well. It was not, however, a goal that I wanted out of the system.




Because people want a balanced 3.5, but there's a not-insignificant portion of the community that is convinced fighters don't need to be better, wizards just need to tone it down, while another part insists that wizards are achieving what they should be based fantasy realism, and that fighters need to either go full anime or admit that they're not actually playing at the same level.

Indeed.

Heck, look at my specific example. I haven't done more for the fighter than give it more feats, really. I could have given it lots more feats, you could give it two feats at every level and not break the game, probably as many feats as the wizard has spells, even! Or make it a full initatior.

Problem with that, though? I do NOT want to have to select, like 20 feats every time I generate (or convert) an NPC Fighter (which is, like, the most common NPC class aside from cleric and rogue in my experience...), or select a load of martial powers. Sometimes, you just want the simple solution.

Trying to find a reasonable balance between Fun Stuff And Powers To Pick mechanically and Everyone Is The Wizard and The Wizard Is Better Than Everyone Else is quite hard (else we would not have so many debates on it), especially as what is fine for my game might not be for yours and vice-versa.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Why would you expect the hulk to be able to do the equivalent of teleporting at any level?

I don't. As I've said before, I don't expect a Fighter to be a Wizard with a different name. I do expect it to be able to do comparably impressive feats. The Hulk may be unable to bind Cytorak or travel through the multiverse but he can dig a tunel through solid rock with his bare hands. He can clap really hard and make people around him deaf. And that's just the Hulk. If we look at a guy like Superman, he could make small tornadoes by running really fast. Those are feats I expect from a (very) high level Fighter.



The hardness and HPs of objects are reasonably well defined. It's not difficult to figure out how much wall you can destroy with an ancient mountain hammer. Some of the epic skill DCs are well within reach of non-epic characters and allow a character to do properly astonishing feats. The problem is, as I said before, not that the rules aren't defined but that they're not typically applicable outside of battle. Splitting a boulder with your bare fist is really impressive but unless it's conveniently blocking an important passage or damming a river or something of that ilk, it's not super useful.

I want to emphasize the bold part because that's the crux of my issue. They aren't well defined for out of combat use but they could be. If there were clear rules of the kinds of effects you can do out of combat, even with just a formalization of rules that are already there, then we can start having interesting things. Being able to split borders and bend iron can be useful when you are trying to infiltrate a castle or are trying to hide from an enemy. If you can break the floor to go to the lower level or if you can break the ceiling to move outside, this opens in and out of combat options.


Those DCs aren't difficult to set even if your examples are a bit extreme. Did you know if you can get to where you can reliably hit DC 80 with both spot and listen you become functionally immune to illusions? Link (http://d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm) You say you don't expect warriors to be wizards by another name but the feats you seem to want them to perform are certainly beyond what could reasonably be construed as anything less than magical. Who in fiction has the ability to see minute detail from kilometers away?

Superman and a lot of the stronger supers out here? The Servants from Fate/Stay Night? The angels from Spohrverse?Don't really expect you to know this one, its a brazilian fantasy series. That's just a few examples that jump to my mind but I'm pretty sure that there are a number of others. Also, I think we have a different conception of 'magical'. Being able to listen from kilometers afar is definetely superhuman and supernatural but 'magical' is not the word I'd use. You're just using your body to it, no mystical energies. If we go by that definition then the Hulk and Superman would have to be magical.

Anyway, I'd be totally okay with the example you've given if DC 80 wasn't such a high number even for a 20th level martial. If a martial could reach such values, even if not becoming immune to illusions but just getting nice bonuses like the ones I've mentioned, even if in a reduced scale, I wouldn't be complaining. I don't expect a Fighter to suddenly become T1 but just to feel like they can do cool things outside of combat.


It does effect the martial classes more than the casters. I can't and won't deny that. The idea that the casters can dispense with their WBL altogether is just hubristic, though. Take the titan from my example again. How long do you suppose a wizard who isn't the very definition of high-op will last, alone, with nothing but the spells in his head? Gate? The titan can do it too and take your monster for himself and didn't spend 1000xp to do it. How many chain-lightnings can you take with D4 hd and a poor reflex save?

Again, my point was not that a Wizard works exactly as well without WBL but that it, as a system, affects martials way more. And given that martials already have the short end of the stick in nearly every other field getting the suck in this point as well is just cruel. A Wizard doesn't need to spend a significant amount of his WBL just to keep his Save DCs competitive but a Fighter needs to keep upgrading his magical weapons in order to function. And in some cases (TWF or characters that try to use different weapons) this ends up weighing a lot on your budget.



WBL generated item dependence, in part, but it also brought about the possibility of otherwise non-magical characters having access to a -lot- of the casters toys without having to multiclass.

I don't dislike magical weapons and gear. Much to the opposite. I love them. But here's the deal: if you build a system around a character needing certain bonuses at certain levels, why not give those bonuses right away instead of having of taking such a roundabout route as WBL? Many people don't have any idea of what kind of item they should buy and many GMs don't think about it or don't like giving magical gear. Needing this forces the campaign and the loot to take a very boring route where you need to give certain itens as treasure just for characters to function properly. So if you decide to give some different item to a character as loot, you either break WBL or cut away from a necessity. Hence why ABP is a much better system. That way you give out the bonuses straight away to a character and let all the loot and money go to actually fun and varied stuff. Also, ABP penalizes casters more than non-casters so I think that's a plus.

But even then, my main point was that magical items being a requirement for a martial to function while being mostly a plus for noncasters. The full decked in magic item style of character advancement in D&D makes it so that characters are so deeply dependent of their magical items that taking them away cripples them so much it isn't even funny. Besides, you can still have magical items without having WBL as a hard requirement for a character (see ABP)

[Silvercrys]

I do NOT want to have to select, like 20 feats every time I generate (or convert) an NPC Fighter (which is, like, the most common NPC class aside from cleric and rogue in my experience...), or select a load of martial powers. Sometimes, you just want the simple solution.

Trying to find a reasonable balance between Fun Stuff And Powers To Pick mechanically and Everyone Is The Wizard and The Wizard Is Better Than Everyone Else is quite hard (else we would not have so many debates on it), especially as what is fine for my game might not be for yours and vice-versa.Well, your problem here could be mostly solved by using the NPC class designed for that purpose rather than leaving the Fighter underpowered. :P

Could even give the Warrior the Fighter's bonus feat progression when you're done buffing the Fighter.

Then bump the Adept up to a full caster with no class features and give the Expert Skill Expertise every even level or something.

But yeah, 3.5 is many different things to many different people and any balance point you choose will be "wrong" for some groups entirely, or wrong for some campaigns but not others, or get knee-jerk reactions of "overpowerrrrred! banned!!" because they don't meet some DM's preferences/ideas of class balancd (*cough* Tome of Battle, Warlocks *cough*).

It's become a Swiss army knife system of sorts just because it's so big and well known, when it was never really meant to be even if the generic d20 system was touted as one.

My feeling is that a lot of groups playing it and trying to completely dismantle it to get a grittier or lower magic game would be happier playing Savage Worlds or an OSR system or a Powered by the Apocalypse game out of the box because 3.5 wasn't really designed with their preferred gaming style in mind and hacking it/fixing it, while ~possible, is usually more trouble than it's worth and very easy to do badly -- while the groups who want extremely high levels of character parity with little required system mastery would be better off playing 4e or a rules light classless game like Fate or OVA.

And, well, given the amount I've personally hacked 3.x/d20 Modern to make it do what I want over the years, I can't really blame people for wanting to do it, just... well, maybe I'm projecting my own frustration because my own group is reticent to try anything not-d20 based but there are a lot of games that are better than it at a lot of stuff.

When you want a high fantasy tactical minis game with RPG character building/leveling that is absolutely huge in the scope of possible characters, it's hard to replace 3.x DnD, but if you want to tell a gritty pulp story, have competent characters that don't need to level into their schtick, have balanced characters that don't require system mastery to stand up at high levels, have an intrigue game, or really do anything outside of that, there are dozens of other systems to try, many of them cheap or free/pay what you want like Fate and Savage Worlds.

I guess I'm just at the point in my own life where hacking and homebrewing complicated systems, while fun, doesn't feel like a good use of my time. I'd rather play DnD when I want DnD, and use other systems that are more easily modified, played, balanced, and prepped for when I want something other than the baseline DnD experience.

Edit: almost forgot to mention, if you really must you can usually get away with losing the +enhancement bonus items by either assigning additional ability increases (something like, increase all ability scores by +2 and you pick one to increase by 1 every four levels) or by creating character tiers delineated in the same way (every 4 levels) and adding your player's tier bonus to ~everything they roll including damage. Keeps you from having to recalculate monsters for their reduced attack bonuses and stuff, doesn't solve the "fighters can't fly" or the +10 equivalent armor and weapon problem, though, and classes like the Soulknife (especially if using DSP version in Pathfinder) will need to be nerfed, or at least heavily monitored.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't. As I've said before, I don't expect a Fighter to be a Wizard with a different name. I do expect it to be able to do comparably impressive feats. The Hulk may be unable to bind Cytorak or travel through the multiverse but he can dig a tunel through solid rock with his bare hands. He can clap really hard and make people around him deaf. And that's just the Hulk. If we look at a guy like Superman, he could make small tornadoes by running really fast. Those are feats I expect from a (very) high level Fighter.

The clapping thing is a feat in Savage Species. The str 30 requirement is a bit steep but eminently doable by high-level.



I want to emphasize the bold part because that's the crux of my issue. They aren't well defined for out of combat use but they could be. If there were clear rules of the kinds of effects you can do out of combat, even with just a formalization of rules that are already there, then we can start having interesting things. Being able to split borders and bend iron can be useful when you are trying to infiltrate a castle or are trying to hide from an enemy. If you can break the floor to go to the lower level or if you can break the ceiling to move outside, this opens in and out of combat options.

But there -are- rules for that sort of thing. Bending metal bars is just a strength check to break through. Floors and ceilings are still just barriers made of material, they follow the same rules as breaking through a wall. If structural stuff is where you're at, the stronghold builder's guidebook and dungeonscape give you a huge array of stuff to work with.

I don't understand what you mean by splitting borders unless you mean the political and military might to carve a kingdom out of an existing principality. That's just the leadership feat. You -can- build around that feat, btw. There's even a class in sword and fist that gives you a castle as a class feature.



Superman and a lot of the stronger supers out here? The Servants from Fate/Stay Night? The angels from Spohrverse?Don't really expect you to know this one, its a brazilian fantasy series. That's just a few examples that jump to my mind but I'm pretty sure that there are a number of others. Also, I think we have a different conception of 'magical'. Being able to listen from kilometers afar is definetely superhuman and supernatural but 'magical' is not the word I'd use. You're just using your body to it, no mystical energies. If we go by that definition then the Hulk and Superman would have to be magical.

Okay, hold up. This is now twice you've brought up Superman. Superman is -not- a high-level warrior. He's a freak of nature and generally considered dramatically OP in his own universe. He's definitely got what would certainly be supernatural and spell like abilities in D&D terms. If we're taking the brakes off of that area then a -lot- of options open up. I've been operating under the assumption we were talking about fighters, samurai, knights, swashbucklers, rogues, scouts, etc; characters who have -no- innate mystical might. You start getting into weird races, psionics (not powers), and classes that grant non-spellcasting SLAs and Supernatural abilities and it gets a -whole- lot easier to get crazy.

I do think I remember archer being able to see a long ways but I also remember him and all the other champions having directly supernatural abilities and/or magical weapons/armor. In anycase, there are tools and class features that allow a non-caster to scry and if you have levels in cragtop archer and a bow with extreme range you can tag enemies from a -long- way off.




Anyway, I'd be totally okay with the example you've given if DC 80 wasn't such a high number even for a 20th level martial. If a martial could reach such values, even if not becoming immune to illusions but just getting nice bonuses like the ones I've mentioned, even if in a reduced scale, I wouldn't be complaining. I don't expect a Fighter to suddenly become T1 but just to feel like they can do cool things outside of combat.

80 is definitely high but it's also reachable before 20. Getting warriors to do insane feats is very doable. Even moreso if you're willing to let them be mystical without going full caster.


Again, my point was not that a Wizard works exactly as well without WBL but that it, as a system, affects martials way more. And given that martials already have the short end of the stick in nearly every other field getting the suck in this point as well is just cruel. A Wizard doesn't need to spend a significant amount of his WBL just to keep his Save DCs competitive but a Fighter needs to keep upgrading his magical weapons in order to function. And in some cases (TWF or characters that try to use different weapons) this ends up weighing a lot on your budget.

I refer you back to shroedinger's wizard vs a real wizard in play. The idea you need little beyond your headband of intellect, periapt of wisdom, or cloak of charisma to keep DCs up is just as wrong as the idea you don't need anything at all. A cleric isn't going to fight on the same level as any warrior without magic arms and armor. A wizard has much more limited spells and spell slots than common wisdom would have you believe. The ability to have the perfect tool tomorrow or even just 15 minutes from now doesn't do you a damn bit of good when you need it -right now-. Staves, runestaves, scrolls, etc exist for a reason and good luck having level appropriate defenses without big gaps if you don't buy any of them.

The theoretical wizard might be able to use CoP to divine the future with near-perfect accuracy (extremely doubtful) but your wizard at the table, asking the GM, will not. Not even close.



I don't dislike magical weapons and gear. Much to the opposite. I love them. But here's the deal: if you build a system around a character needing certain bonuses at certain levels, why not give those bonuses right away instead of having of taking such a roundabout route as WBL? Many people don't have any idea of what kind of item they should buy and many GMs don't think about it or don't like giving magical gear. Needing this forces the campaign and the loot to take a very boring route where you need to give certain itens as treasure just for characters to function properly. So if you decide to give some different item to a character as loot, you either break WBL or cut away from a necessity. Hence why ABP is a much better system. That way you give out the bonuses straight away to a character and let all the loot and money go to actually fun and varied stuff. Also, ABP penalizes casters more than non-casters so I think that's a plus.

There are actually a number of ways to get the number you care about, whichever it is, not only to the level appropriate target value but way over and way under. That's a feature, not a bug. Getting flat +X to Y value items is just the most straight-forward way to do it. That they exist and will fall in your lap is a virtual guarantee unless the GM -deliberately- removes them since they're all weighted pretty heavily in the random treasure tables too. I much prefer the option to prioritize for myself which numberes I push vs which I neglect over a flat value being given at X level whether I really care about that statistic or not. Also, with ABP, weapons and armor that give flat bonuses are now causing the problem they cause in earlier and later editions: they inherently push you -past- the target numbers and throw off the PC class vs monster balance.

You -can't- have simple +X items with ABP which means your values are -fixed- by your class(es) at any given level. That's certainly simpler but I don't necessarily agree that it's better.


But even then, my main point was that magical items being a requirement for a martial to function while being mostly a plus for noncasters. The full decked in magic item style of character advancement in D&D makes it so that characters are so deeply dependent of their magical items that taking them away cripples them so much it isn't even funny. Besides, you can still have magical items without having WBL as a hard requirement for a character (see ABP)

Seriously, WBL is -less- important to casters but it's not -unimportant- to casters. It's not just a plus. Unless you're just plain bad at picking your gear or being told by your GM to take what random crap he gives you and like it (not the default assumption in the rules) you will have plenty of room for customization after getting your +X items, even more so if you're willing to lag on some things.

Look at a fighter 20: +5 weapon, +5 mithral plate, +5 heavy shield, +5 ring of protection, +5 necklace of natural armor, +6 items to all three physical abilities, +5 cloak of resistance. You've spent 344k, give or take, out of the 760,000 gold worth of stuff you're supposed to have. You're at AC 44 and attacking for probably somewhere north of 31 against the system's expected targets of 33 and 32, respectively and still have more than half your WBL to go. That's without spending intelligently and maxing all the +X values; just brute-forcing the numbers the hard, "meeting minimal expectations" way.

I -like- the heavily customizable option WotC went with better than the "here's your numbers and maybe you get some other goodies if the GM feels like it" simplified option. I don't agree that it was a poor design choice. At all.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, your problem here could be mostly solved by using the NPC class designed for that purpose rather than leaving the Fighter underpowered. :P

Could even give the Warrior the Fighter's bonus feat progression when you're done buffing the Fighter.

Then bump the Adept up to a full caster with no class features and give the Expert Skill Expertise every even level or something.

I don't tend to NPC classes, like at all, not as actual combatants anyway.

(I have not used a warrior in... Yeah, I can't remember. I MIGHT have used one or two at the very bottom of Night Below (and THAT quest ran to level 17), but not since.

Checking the fact I DID make some notes on Warrior for my homebrew campaign world - yeah, I already gave them feats at 1st and every 3rd level AND a month's training by a Fighter and a DC 20 Profession (Teacher) check (noting in passing Fighters have Profession as a class skill, becaudse that was a dumb omission...) turns a warrior into a fighter anyway.

Also, apparently, I also wrote that commoners past level 5 start replacing commoner level with expert, as well as automatically every 50 years of age...



Note to self: probably ought to straight delete Healer from the classes list, since I'm really not sure there is honestly anything worth saving, especially since I have noted the onyl way to do anything for that class is by a deliberate misspelling to give them a Unicron companion...






But yeah, 3.5 is many different things to many different people and any balance point you choose will be "wrong" for some groups entirely, or wrong for some campaigns but not others, or get knee-jerk reactions of "overpowerrrrred! banned!!" because they don't meet some DM's preferences/ideas of class balancd (*cough* Tome of Battle, Warlocks *cough*).

It's become a Swiss army knife system of sorts just because it's so big and well known, when it was never really meant to be even if the generic d20 system was touted as one.

My feeling is that a lot of groups playing it and trying to completely dismantle it to get a grittier or lower magic game would be happier playing Savage Worlds or an OSR system or a Powered by the Apocalypse game out of the box because 3.5 wasn't really designed with their preferred gaming style in mind and hacking it/fixing it, while ~possible, is usually more trouble than it's worth and very easy to do badly -- while the groups who want extremely high levels of character parity with little required system mastery would be better off playing 4e or a rules light classless game like Fate or OVA.

And, well, given the amount I've personally hacked 3.x/d20 Modern to make it do what I want over the years, I can't really blame people for wanting to do it, just... well, maybe I'm projecting my own frustration because my own group is reticent to try anything not-d20 based but there are a lot of games that are better than it at a lot of stuff.

When you want a high fantasy tactical minis game with RPG character building/leveling that is absolutely huge in the scope of possible characters, it's hard to replace 3.x DnD, but if you want to tell a gritty pulp story, have competent characters that don't need to level into their schtick, have balanced characters that don't require system mastery to stand up at high levels, have an intrigue game, or really do anything outside of that, there are dozens of other systems to try, many of them cheap or free/pay what you want like Fate and Savage Worlds.

My systems of choce (read: exclusion, bar theorhetically returning to Warhammer Fantasy 1st ed because I have the questbooks) are 3.x and Rolemaster, as between them they will do anything I want and, I think at this point, it will be almost impossible for something to be ABLE to displace those two now. (Rolemaster, in particular, is well-suited to being used anywhere, anywhen, provided you don't want to bother with combat at the same emphasis as D&D. It makes for a much better chassis for my sci-fi explore-y games, though.)




I guess I'm just at the point in my own life where hacking and homebrewing complicated systems, while fun, doesn't feel like a good use of my time.

*about to start another round of the current upgrade project that's been done 6/7 evenings for the past three weeks-ish*

*will only not be doing it all this week because he's off down to London for a long weekend as part of his 40th celebrations for a couple of week's hense*

*looks at 642 pages of combined documentation/write-ups and rules for 3.Aotrs (going back to 2000) - not including spell and power list spread sheets and attended class spell list files - plus 223 pages of rules modifications specific to Dreemaenhyll campaign world, plus 116 pages of same pertaining to Rolemaster (going back to the mid-90's to documentation starting out on the Atari ST before he had a PC and which is only lower because RM never actually goes out of the house and not even he is willing to copy up all of RM's stuff... Yet), plus the 170-pages of starship rules he spent 15 years working on before publishing*

Yeah, that's never going to be a thing in my case.




Edit: almost forgot to mention, if you really must you can usually get away with losing the +enhancement bonus items by either assigning additional ability increases (something like, increase all ability scores by +2 and you pick one to increase by 1 every four levels) or by creating character tiers delineated in the same way (every 4 levels) and adding your player's tier bonus to ~everything they roll including damage. Keeps you from having to recalculate monsters for their reduced attack bonuses and stuff, doesn't solve the "fighters can't fly" or the +10 equivalent armor and weapon problem, though, and classes like the Soulknife (especially if using DSP version in Pathfinder) will need to be nerfed, or at least heavily monitored.

72 pages of the Dreemaenhyll stuff mentioned above is the bestiary, which was rebuilt from scratch and re-envisioned from mythical basis.

I do not DO the non-exhaustive method...

[Silvercrys]

Hey, if overhauling the whole system is something you feel well equipped to do, you have the time to do it, and you think the time and energy invested in the system is worth it, by all means. Don't let me dissuade you.

I'm just at the point where I've hacked it apart and back together for one off campaigns so many times that I'd rather pull out the books for a rules light system when I want to tell a story and leave DnD as a sort of tactical wargame/dungeon crawler since that's what it's best at. More like HeroQuest writ large than a proper storytelling system.

As far as Quadratic Fighters go, I'm not sure if it was you or someone else but I basically agree with whoever was saying "the Fighter's problems aren't numbers, the classes are inherently unbalanced due to the tropes they play to and Fighters who could affect the story/narrative the same way a Wizard can would stop being Fighters".

That said, personally I'd be happier with a game where there weren't any Fighters. Your mileage will vary.

[ThatMoonGuy]

The clapping thing is a feat in Savage Species. The str 30 requirement is a bit steep but eminently doable by high-level.

It's also a feat in Spheres of Power. Actually, just to get this straight, we're arguing from slightly different places. I mostly play Pathfinder so I don't really know the more esoteric options for 3.5e. Even then, I'd say this ought to be a core feature and not something from a book that I'm pretty sure only a fraction of people know about.



But there -are- rules for that sort of thing. Bending metal bars is just a strength check to break through. Floors and ceilings are still just barriers made of material, they follow the same rules as breaking through a wall. If structural stuff is where you're at, the stronghold builder's guidebook and dungeonscape give you a huge array of stuff to work with.

Again, that's good but it should be better integrated into the system. Make it clear to the player that this is possible and assume that as a core part of the system and build options around it. Spheres of Power has a Talent that allows you to turn the ground in hard terrain if you can cause enough damage to it. Having things like that explicitly stated and well integrated into the class, maybe as sort of spells, would be a good think. Maybe including in the skill list a series of things you can do with a skill if you reach a certain result (a bit like the unlocks) would be good as well.



I don't understand what you mean by splitting borders unless you mean the political and military might to carve a kingdom out of an existing principality. That's just the leadership feat. You -can- build around that feat, btw. There's even a class in sword and fist that gives you a castle as a class feature.

Boulders. Autocorrect be damned.



Okay, hold up. This is now twice you've brought up Superman. Superman is -not- a high-level warrior. He's a freak of nature and generally considered dramatically OP in his own universe. He's definitely got what would certainly be supernatural and spell like abilities in D&D terms. If we're taking the brakes off of that area then a -lot- of options open up. I've been operating under the assumption we were talking about fighters, samurai, knights, swashbucklers, rogues, scouts, etc; characters who have -no- innate mystical might. You start getting into weird races, psionics (not powers), and classes that grant non-spellcasting SLAs and Supernatural abilities and it gets a -whole- lot easier to get crazy.

I do think I remember archer being able to see a long ways but I also remember him and all the other champions having directly supernatural abilities and/or magical weapons/armor. In anycase, there are tools and class features that allow a non-caster to scry and if you have levels in cragtop archer and a bow with extreme range you can tag enemies from a -long- way off.

A high level fighter should be a freak of nature. Not in the "hull planets and fire lasers from the eyes" sense but just in the "physically mighty" one. If the mind of a Wizard can create effects equal to that of gods, then the body of a Fighter should equally be as mighty as that of one. See the thing with Archer. He did have supernatural things but his vision is just his natural sense. So is Saber's sixth sense and speed.

Again, why is a level 1 Wizard in robes faster than a Fighter 20 in full plate? If you think of the Fighter as one who honed his body to the utmost, he should not only be stronger and tougher but also faster and have keener senses than anyone. Fighting isn't just hitting very hard very fast but knowing how to read your opponent and the cues they give.

Again, Spheres of Might has a Talent that allows an Archer to shoot and arrow miles away. Now imagine things like that but also to the senses. My ideal conceptualisation of a Fighter (or samurai) 20 would be one whose every physical aspect has reached far beyond what any human is capable of. The world seems to move slow to him, every one of his senses had been sharpened to the point where they can catch even the slightest of stimuli, they are so fast that no one is able to match them. And if we go into a more philosophical side (think something like the Go Rin no Shou) he should also be a tactical genius and keen strategist who survived countless battles and understands deeply how people think and act.

QUOTE=Kelb_Panthera;24191843]
80 is definitely high but it's also reachable before 20. Getting warriors to do insane feats is very doable. Even moreso if you're willing to let them be mystical without going full caster.[/QUOTE]

I'm arguing to let them go mystical. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'd go full youxia. In my games, I strongly recommend players to use PoW and Spheres, mixing and matching to get the right result. But that's my personal taste and I know that doesn't fly to many so try to argue for the lowest common denominator.

As for getting to 80, I'd like to see the calcs. Not saying that I don't believe in you but I want to see what kind of optimization goes into that. Again, I argue from PF not 3.5e.



I refer you back to shroedinger's wizard vs a real wizard in play. The idea you need little beyond your headband of intellect, periapt of wisdom, or cloak of charisma to keep DCs up is just as wrong as the idea you don't need anything at all. A cleric isn't going to fight on the same level as any warrior without magic arms and armor. A wizard has much more limited spells and spell slots than common wisdom would have you believe. The ability to have the perfect tool tomorrow or even just 15 minutes from now doesn't do you a damn bit of good when you need it -right now-. Staves, runestaves, scrolls, etc exist for a reason and good luck having level appropriate defenses without big gaps if you don't buy any of them.

Yet, there's a reason why CodZilla was a thing and Druid is often argued as the best class in 3.5e. and that's not even counting with the kind of optimization that's possible. But again I don't disagree that they get affects just that martials are affected much more. The save DC of a Wizard (when that's even a thing they worry about) will never rely on their WBL but a Fighter's to hit will.




are actually a number of ways to get the number you care about, whichever it is, not only to the level appropriate target value but way over and way under. That's a feature, not a bug. Getting flat +X to Y value items is just the most straight-forward way to do it.

I'm pretty sure that's not more straightforward than just baking it into the class.



That they exist and will fall in your lap is a virtual guarantee unless the GM -deliberately- removes them since they're all weighted pretty heavily in the random treasure tables too.


We must have had very different DMs then. And the fact that ABP exists and 5e almost completely dropped magic item economy seems indicative that my case is not, shall I say, unique.



I much prefer the option to prioritize for myself which numberes I push vs which I neglect over a flat value being given at X level whether I really care about that statistic or not.

Th GM giving you itens or you buying them intelligently or not will happen on both sides. The sole difference being that it's harder for a player to screw himself up with ABP. You'll always have what you need when you need so you don't have to worry about it and can just pick whatever is fun for you.

Not only that, but being able to switch which weapon you have as your bonus means you have way more versatility. If you want to switch from an katana to a spear and then to a scythe, you can do it, easy enough. With WBL you have to spend money on every different weapon.

To put it bluntly, I don't see why be so roundabout about the expected numbers. If you always expect certain numbers for things to work why not give those numbers in the class chassis instead of throwing loops around it? Because, hey, if your DM doesn't know or forgets about WBL appropriate equips (it happens a lot) you start getting fried by things you should be able to kill. If anything, the existence of WBL makes you more vulnerable to the whims of the DM unlike something that's inherent to the character.

Finally, you could make ABP progression be class based instead of character based and thus have different classes get different things. Sure, I know this would be troublesome with multiclassing (5e is saying hi) but it isn't an unsolvable issue.

[Elves]

Re what a high level fighter should look like:

I think the designers were pretty much right to keep fighter generic and modular. Seems like the easiest and least offensive way to insert the kinds of powers people are discussing is just to make them homebrew feats with a "fighter level xth" prerequisite.

Fundamentally I do understand the people who aren't onboard with high level fighter as superhero: it feels artificial because unlike classes with magic powers, there is no "power source" to justify the fantastical increase in capabilities. Studying magic provides you exponentially increasing powers? Sounds good to me! Being a good servant of your god means they entrust you with greater powers? Sounds logical. Practicing fighting a lot makes you a superhero? We all know it doesn't work like that.

The solution is very simple: for these new fighter feats, just insert fluff text like "you were blessed by the great wolf god of whatever" or crap like that, which justifies it on a magico-mythical basis without actually inserting magic powers.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's also a feat in Spheres of Power. Actually, just to get this straight, we're arguing from slightly different places. I mostly play Pathfinder so I don't really know the more esoteric options for 3.5e. Even then, I'd say this ought to be a core feature and not something from a book that I'm pretty sure only a fraction of people know about.

Fair enough. I know precious little about PF. Didn't like what I did learn early on so I stuck to 3e.

That aside, feats -are- a core feature. The intellectual wherewithal to deliberately hold back your offense for extra defense at an even rate is a feat (combat expertise) as is the ability to note and capitalize on multiple gaps in enemies' defense between turns (combat reflexes). Complaining that this particular feat is in a peculiar source rather than the core rulebook strikes me as rather a superfluous complaint. Most feats are outside of the players handbook; virtually all the good ones.




Again, that's good but it should be better integrated into the system. Make it clear to the player that this is possible and assume that as a core part of the system and build options around it. Spheres of Power has a Talent that allows you to turn the ground in hard terrain if you can cause enough damage to it. Having things like that explicitly stated and well integrated into the class, maybe as sort of spells, would be a good think. Maybe including in the skill list a series of things you can do with a skill if you reach a certain result (a bit like the unlocks) would be good as well.

The only reason that I can think of that such a thing wouldn't occur to a player is because they're stuck in a videogame mentality where you can only do what the game explicitly tells you you can and nothing else. This is not a videogame and the rules do exist. You can't expect a PNP game to explicate -everything- you can do, else the core rulebooks would be the size of unabridged dictionaries and read like physics textbooks.


Boulders. Autocorrect be damned.

Thought that might be it but didn't want to assume. :smallsmile:




A high level fighter should be a freak of nature. Not in the "hull planets and fire lasers from the eyes" sense but just in the "physically mighty" one. If the mind of a Wizard can create effects equal to that of gods, then the body of a Fighter should equally be as mighty as that of one. See the thing with Archer. He did have supernatural things but his vision is just his natural sense. So is Saber's sixth sense and speed.

The god of strength in the default setting has a strength score of 55. I can and have produced characters that get near or past that, if only a few times per day and with -some- help from gear. Most land somewhere in the upper twenties unless they're built to be self-buffing monstrosities; usually on a barbarian base or something similar.

I won't deny that takes a bit of op-fu though.


Again, why is a level 1 Wizard in robes faster than a Fighter 20 in full plate? If you think of the Fighter as one who honed his body to the utmost, he should not only be stronger and tougher but also faster and have keener senses than anyone. Fighting isn't just hitting very hard very fast but knowing how to read your opponent and the cues they give.

Because a fighter 20 hasn't done anything to build on his speed while a wizard 1 has nothing impeding his. A fighter 20 is specialized in having a set of reliable combat tricks or having one that virtually never fails if it can be applied (fighter bonus feats). You want speed in plate, dip any of the handful of classes that give fast movement in up to medium armor and make sure your plate is mithral or equivalent and/or take martial stance for the absolute steel stance.

If properly high mobility is your thing, there's hardly a better class out there for it than OA's blade dancer and you can meet the class' spellcasting requirement with the magical training feat from PGtF or a one level dip into literally -any- casting class. It can't do it in plate unless you enhance the plate with the half-weight feature but 90ft at high levels along with massive bonuses to acrobatic skills.


Again, Spheres of Might has a Talent that allows an Archer to shoot and arrow miles away. Now imagine things like that but also to the senses. My ideal conceptualisation of a Fighter (or samurai) 20 would be one whose every physical aspect has reached far beyond what any human is capable of. The world seems to move slow to him, every one of his senses had been sharpened to the point where they can catch even the slightest of stimuli, they are so fast that no one is able to match them. And if we go into a more philosophical side (think something like the Go Rin no Shou) he should also be a tactical genius and keen strategist who survived countless battles and understands deeply how people think and act.

Let's see, cragtop archer and deepwood sniper with a dragonbone composite longbow can hit up to (((130*1.5)+100)*15) 4425 ft away with no penalty at all as long as he can percieve the target. That's 1.35 kilometers. Gets a whole host of other archery related goodies too.

Speed, I already mentioned blade dancer. Hook one up with some diamond mind maneuvers in whichever way you prefer and get the perfect clarity of body and mind feat to shoot accross the battlefield as quickly as an average archer's arrows.

Sensory shenanigans starts with ranger and ends at LOLing illusions. Sword and fist has a feat to gain blindsight out to 5ft (very diretly named) and the hearing the air stance gives you blindsense out to 30ft. Not to even mention any of the non-human racese that give you extraordinary senses.

If you expect to get anywhere impressive on a single-class character in a sytem that presumes multiclassing in virtually all of its content then I don't know what to tell you. Casters don't reach the pinacle of their power without PrCs, I don't know why you'd expect non-casters to do so.



I'm arguing to let them go mystical. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'd go full youxia. In my games, I strongly recommend players to use PoW and Spheres, mixing and matching to get the right result. But that's my personal taste and I know that doesn't fly to many so try to argue for the lowest common denominator.

Like I said above. I know very little about PF. I know nothing of either spheres book and about all I know about PoW is that it's supposed to be essentially ToB for PF.

In 3.5 though, most of what you've mentioned is already possible it's just not something you're going to default into with no effort. I'm very ok with that. If I didn't want to put effort into characters, I'd play something -much- more rules light.


As for getting to 80, I'd like to see the calcs. Not saying that I don't believe in you but I want to see what kind of optimization goes into that. Again, I argue from PF not 3.5e.

Default on skills is max ranks, an item familiar, and the default skill-booster items. Lets go with a ranger 16/ Exemplar 1, int 14. Max ranks gets us 20, all of his skill ranks past 3 invested in his item familiar (high risk decision) for twenty-eight +1 bonuses pumped into spot makes 48. Wisdom 20 from base 14 and a +6 periapt makes another +5 for 53, and pick up craft wondrous item to make yourself another +20 based on your own skill ranks for a total of 63. Take 10 from exemplar's skill mastery makes 73. Skill focus gets you another 3 for 76. Make it an elf and trade the animal companion for an urban companion and you're at 81. You can now laugh at how near blind a hawk is by comparison.

I'll grant that the item familiar is a -little- cheesy and the possibility that it be taken from you is not without risk but a cleric without his holy symbol is in trouble as is a fighter without his sword. You'll still be able to fight, at least, unless you invested a whole bunch more in it than just your skill ranks.

If it's a bridge too far, lets swap it for a totemist 16/ exemplar 1 with expandeded soulmeld capacity, a set of incarnum focus goggles, and purchased skill booster of +25. Still an elf, still wis 20 makes 20 ranks, 25 competence, 5 wisdom, 2 from elf, 16 from either the great raptor mask or the yrthak mask (spot and listen respectively) and 2 more for alertness. Skill mastery to take 10 for 80 on the nose. Still gotta roll a 12 or find another +2 for listen but there you go.




Yet, there's a reason why CodZilla was a thing and Druid is often argued as the best class in 3.5e. and that's not even counting with the kind of optimization that's possible. But again I don't disagree that they get affects just that martials are affected much more. The save DC of a Wizard (when that's even a thing they worry about) will never rely on their WBL but a Fighter's to hit will.

A fighter, or any other good BAB class will have the same roughly 50/50 shot of hitting the average AC for his level he had at level 1 if he never sees a shiny silver piece and never boosts his primary attack stat from level ups. Average AC grows at a rate of about 1 point per level. Gear pushes it from hoping the dice don't screw you to guaranteeing a hit unless miss-chance with virtually no optimization effort at all. His gear is much more important for defense.

Human wizard that starts with 18 has int 22 at level 17, his 9th level DC is 25. Monsters in about that CR range will save against that near to 40% of the time on their poor saves. Without spending feats, cash, or class levels, that's no more reliable than the fighter's sword. Now, obviously you can choose spells that don't target saves but very few of them have lethal or near enough to lethal consequences without some -other- defense getting in the way or requiring some further step that's going to require either more spells or an ally to do the cleanup.

The WBL independence of casters is -greatly- exaggerated. It's pretty much -just- the druid and you can undo that with a single, simple change; ban natural spell. When the choice is be a bear or be a spellcaster, it comes way back down to earth.


I'm pretty sure that's not more straightforward than just baking it into the class.

I meant it's the most straight-forward in the existing paradigm. Random treasure will drop them in your lap and they do exactly what they're supposed to do, nothing more or less.


We must have had very different DMs then. And the fact that ABP exists and 5e almost completely dropped magic item economy seems indicative that my case is not, shall I say, unique.

It's not unique but neither is it a failure of the system. Making haphazard, poorly informed changes to a complex system rarely accomplishes what you want it to without a host of unintended consequences. GMs getting all Ebenezer Scrooge over the Monty-Haul Christmas is on the GMs, not the christmas tree.


Th GM giving you itens or you buying them intelligently or not will happen on both sides. The sole difference being that it's harder for a player to screw himself up with ABP. You'll always have what you need when you need so you don't have to worry about it and can just pick whatever is fun for you.

The difference is that ABP give the GM a perfect excuse to give you nothing at all. Then we're right back where we started with non-casters having no access to caster toys unless you completely overhaul the system. Under the current system, there's an expectation that you'll not only get what you need just from random generation, but that you'll end up with excess that you can spend on toys to help close the gap. If I'm -really- that bothered about teleportation (nothing wrong with walking, IMO) then I can buy a helmet of teleportation. If I'm worried my senses aren't good enough, I can buy gear to improve them both directly (competence bonus to spot/listen) and indirectly (blindfold of true darkness). Flight when I didn't want a flying race? Stitch them things on (grafts).

In the default system, as written, a GM has to veto when you want to buy something weird. Under an ABP system, it's "mother may I..." territory since you don't -need- gear. A GM -can- give you gear you don't need under ABP but he can also give a character with no spellcasting divine rank contingent on him never taking a casting class level.


Not only that, but being able to switch which weapon you have as your bonus means you have way more versatility. If you want to switch from an katana to a spear and then to a scythe, you can do it, easy enough. With WBL you have to spend money on every different weapon.

There's virtually no real versatility in the weapons themselves. At high level the weapon itself is trivial outside of the bonus attached to it through magic and there are a number of ways to get those bonuses up to par without having to carry a golf-bag. The easiest by far is to simpy make one of the enhancements on the weapon the morphing property. Combined with sizing, a liberal reading of the rules would mean that you can have your weapon change into nearly any other weapon at your discretion.


To put it bluntly, I don't see why be so roundabout about the expected numbers. If you always expect certain numbers for things to work why not give those numbers in the class chassis instead of throwing loops around it? Because, hey, if your DM doesn't know or forgets about WBL appropriate equips (it happens a lot) you start getting fried by things you should be able to kill. If anything, the existence of WBL makes you more vulnerable to the whims of the DM unlike something that's inherent to the character.

The GM not knowing or forgetting to read big parts of the DMG is no different from a player having no idea how feats or skills work because he didn't bother with those segments of the PHB. Doesn't matter how common it is, it's still not a fault in the system itself. It's human error; no different than if your toaster stops working properly after you try to put cheese in it and gum up the circuitry.

There's no real work involved for the GM here. It's all been done for him by the game's designers. All he has to do is roll on the tables for the encounters as they come and allow the PCs to do with their wealth what they will, per the community wealth guidelines given. It's 5 minutes of work at high-level and barely 1 at low.

A GM getting a bugaboo up his butt about that is no different than him doing the same to the spell-lists and telling the casters "no, you can't have anything I don't specifically give you."

If you want to be lazy, follow the damn guidelines. If you're too lazy for that, I don't think I want you GMing in the first place.


Finally, you could make ABP progression be class based instead of character based and thus have different classes get different things. Sure, I know this would be troublesome with multiclassing (5e is saying hi) but it isn't an unsolvable issue.

Fortunately, the classes already do have the differences between themselves for the purposes of those numbers baked in. Getting the same ABPs won't homogenize them much more than the current system's defaults, assuming ABP already lets you choose which ability score you get to apply its bonuses to. Different rates of scaling on BAB, base saves, and class based restrictions on armor and weapon choice fill that niche of class differentiation adequately. A wizard in no armor will always be at least 40% more likely to be hit by any given attack than a plate clad warrior.

All that aside, let's address the elephant in the room; ABP is a patch-job. It was created in its entirety to cover the gap left in -this- system by removing WBL or at least the +X bits of it. If you're building a whole new system from the ground up, you set the numbers for virtually everything differently to start with (hi 5e.)

If you -do- give no consideration to gear in the game's basic design beyond simple mundane armor and weapons though, putting in superior gear becomes a stressor to the system. Any +X bonus means you're suddenly -better- than the system expects you to be at that point. The trope of an otherwise unremarkable sword that makes you a better swordsman by merely wielding it, either through magic or simply through superior craftsmanship -has- to go away or it will unbalance the game.

How does excalibur not become the center of the plot in that circumstance?

[ThatMoonGuy]

Yeah. We are assuming way different ways of going about the game. I'm not thinking about hyper optmizers who dive deep into books and multiclass in everything to get what they want. I'm defending that you should not need to multiclass to have a Fighter be faster and have keener vision. I'm also defending you shouldn't need items for that. The base class should give you the basics of a supernaturally gifted body which, I argue, includes being faster and keener than others.

I don't assume most tables or most people are able or willing to look into obscure books to get what they want. I myself do it and I let and tell my players to do it but I've been in groups that did all sorts of things, from banning anything beyond CRB/DMG and calling the PHB 2 "apocrypha" to allowing strange selections like Stormwrack and BoVE but forbid ToB. The options and splatbooks should exist to give options but the core should already suffice for most things. It's crazy to me when people argue like using Incarnum or item familiars is obvious and a solution to problems when most I've played with in my decade plus career don't really have any idea about what those things are. Unless you have some really obscure character concept, you shouldn't need to do this kind of optimization.

I don't think that taking for granted that players will multiclass, much less multiclass well, is something we should do. Every class should be useful from 1 to 20 and should give a functional core in its 1 to 20. Hence, I firmly believe that a Fighter 20 should not need to multiclass to have everyone of his physical functions be better than an untrained individual. It's neither realistic nor fun to have a Fighter's speed not increase inside the class because, well, speed is a core part of battle and every soldier in the history of mankind trains to be faster. So how come the Fighter, who is defined as a ultimate sort of soldier, doesn't get faster than Joe, the Butcher?

As for ABP, I agree that it's a bandaid. A system like that should be better thought out and taken as an assumption of the system. That or the numbers should not be necessary period. The fact that a class needs a certain + by a certain level only exists because the designers want it to. But since fixing every single published monster would be a load of work, it's just easier to simply solve things player side.

As for you last example, I'd argue that in an ABP based system, a weapon with some incredible property (like Excalibur or the Gae Bolg) would be much more impressive and, sure, game changing. But then again, I think that's a good thing and that magical items should be impactful and not just a requirement.

By this point we are obviously coming from completely different game and game design philosophies so I think there's not gonna be much of a middle. If I was to design an D&D edition I'd never allow a Fighter to be like it is. Then again, I do believe classes need a conceptual revamp so I probably wouldn't even have a "fighter".

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah. We are assuming way different ways of going about the game. I'm not thinking about hyper optmizers who dive deep into books and multiclass in everything to get what they want. I'm defending that you should not need to multiclass to have a Fighter be faster and have keener vision. I'm also defending you shouldn't need items for that. The base class should give you the basics of a supernaturally gifted body which, I argue, includes being faster and keener than others.

I don't assume most tables or most people are able or willing to look into obscure books to get what they want. I myself do it and I let and tell my players to do it but I've been in groups that did all sorts of things, from banning anything beyond CRB/DMG and calling the PHB 2 "apocrypha" to allowing strange selections like Stormwrack and BoVE but forbid ToB. The options and splatbooks should exist to give options but the core should already suffice for most things. It's crazy to me when people argue like using Incarnum or item familiars is obvious and a solution to problems when most I've played with in my decade plus career don't really have any idea about what those things are. Unless you have some really obscure character concept, you shouldn't need to do this kind of optimization.

I don't think that taking for granted that players will multiclass, much less multiclass well, is something we should do. Every class should be useful from 1 to 20 and should give a functional core in its 1 to 20. Hence, I firmly believe that a Fighter 20 should not need to multiclass to have everyone of his physical functions be better than an untrained individual. It's neither realistic nor fun to have a Fighter's speed not increase inside the class because, well, speed is a core part of battle and every soldier in the history of mankind trains to be faster. So how come the Fighter, who is defined as a ultimate sort of soldier, doesn't get faster than Joe, the Butcher?

As for ABP, I agree that it's a bandaid. A system like that should be better thought out and taken as an assumption of the system. That or the numbers should not be necessary period. The fact that a class needs a certain + by a certain level only exists because the designers want it to. But since fixing every single published monster would be a load of work, it's just easier to simply solve things player side.

As for you last example, I'd argue that in an ABP based system, a weapon with some incredible property (like Excalibur or the Gae Bolg) would be much more impressive and, sure, game changing. But then again, I think that's a good thing and that magical items should be impactful and not just a requirement.

By this point we are obviously coming from completely different game and game design philosophies so I think there's not gonna be much of a middle. If I was to design an D&D edition I'd never allow a Fighter to be like it is. Then again, I do believe classes need a conceptual revamp so I probably wouldn't even have a "fighter".

Question, then - what do you do about the guy that WANTS to play a straight, non-superhero Man With Sword, because he isn't keen enough, or doesn't play enough to be bothered with more than that? Or the guy that wants to play, conceptually, like, Boromir?



Edit: I've got a good case in point. There's a player in our group, used to be a regular, now just a occasional player (I've known him the longest of all my mates, since I was, like, ten).

He played Dilan, the knife-man, who threw knives at people. Campaign (converted Night Below) ran from 1st to 17th. Almost straight fighter - he had a late dip into 1 level of rogue solely to pick up Sacred Sneak Attack because he was Exalted and at the time, I couldn't think of anything better to increase his dagger capability (if we did him now, I've stolen a load more feats from PF he could have used). That's all he wanted to do with the character.

The character he has in the 16th level party we play on day games (where I'm NOT the DM), he plays a TWF Sword-and-board Fighter, and his brother also plays a straight fighter. They play, the pair of them, these days, no more than four times per year (the first chap actually only twice, since I cajoled him into running Dredd D20 twice a year, since we're playing through a campaign, basically and we'd likely forget everything if we didn't play about every six months!)

This, incidently, is the same chap who had to be, when we played a party that started and finished at level 11, reminded that his druid HAD SPELLS and couild do other things aside from Turning Into A Bear.

So, yeah, I have personal experience with players that just, like, can't be bothered with all that, and are just happy to roll a load of attack rolls for their characters. Gotta leave THEM some options too, right?

[Sereg]

Question, then - what do you do about the guy that WANTS to play a straight, non-superhero Man With Sword, because he isn't keen enough, or doesn't play enough to be bothered with more than that? Or the guy that wants to play, conceptually, like, Boromir?



Edit: I've got a good case in point. There's a player in our group, used to be a regular, now just a occasional player (I've known him the longest of all my mates, since I was, like, ten).

He played Dilan, the knife-man, who threw knives at people. Campaign (converted Night Below) ran from 1st to 17th. Almost straight fighter - he had a late dip into 1 level of rogue solely to pick up Sacred Sneak Attack because he was Exalted and at the time, I couldn't think of anything better to increase his dagger capability (if we did him now, I've stolen a load more feats from PF he could have used). That's all he wanted to do with the character.

The character he has in the 16th level party we play on day games (where I'm NOT the DM), he plays a TWF Sword-and-board Fighter, and his brother also plays a straight fighter. They play, the pair of them, these days, no more than four times per year (the first chap actually only twice, since I cajoled him into running Dredd D20 twice a year, since we're playing through a campaign, basically and we'd likely forget everything if we didn't play about every six months!)

This, incidently, is the same chap who had to be, when we played a party that started and finished at level 11, reminded that his druid HAD SPELLS and couild do other things aside from Turning Into A Bear.

So, yeah, I have personal experience with players that just, like, can't be bothered with all that, and are just happy to roll a load of attack rolls for their characters. Gotta leave THEM some options too, right?

Let them know that Boromir was probably about level 5? And that DnD is supposed to roughly double your power every 2 levels? I mean, even his own setting has characters who are solar system busters and ones capable of altering geography with brute force. That's leave out the omnipotent Eru.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Let them know that Boromir was probably about level 5? And that DnD is supposed to roughly double your power every 2 levels? I mean, even his own setting has characters who are solar system busters and ones capable of altering geography with brute force. That's leave out the omnipotent Eru.

This. Boromir was killed by a bunch of Uruk-hai ganking him. Dude was nowhere that strong in D&D terms. Someone playing Boromir at 20 is like Boromir fighting in the Silmarillion Wars. He has no place being there.

If your party wants to play at strong human level then just play E6. The good part of starting high is that it's easier to go down than it is to go up.

[Aotrs Commander]

Let them know that Boromir was probably about level 5? And that DnD is supposed to roughly double your power every 2 levels? I mean, even his own setting has characters who are solar system busters and ones capable of altering geography with brute force. That's leave out the omnipotent Eru.


This. Boromir was killed by a bunch of Uruk-hai ganking him. Dude was nowhere that strong in D&D terms. Someone playing Boromir at 20 is like Boromir fighting in the Silmarillion Wars. He has no place being there.

If your party wants to play at strong human level then just play E6. The good part of starting high is that it's easier to go down than it is to go up.

So "play a super hero or get knotted" then?

[AvatarVecna]

So "play a super hero or get knotted" then?

A game where mages are holding back can have non-mages still be relevant without having to do crazy charop stuff - to use your example, if the druid is just always turning into animals without using spell slots ever, they can probably be pretty competitive with a not-awfully-built martial (that is to say, somebody picking on a theme rather than randomly, even if their choices overall are kinda underpowered).

The problem is that it doesn't take much effort at all to make the non-mages feel useless or worse, overshadowed, and that just gets worse the higher-level you get. If the mages aren't holding back, and the non-mages don't want to step up their game...the group's not meshing well. They're functionally playing two separate games. And while changing the current system would suck for the people who don't want to have to build super-complicated swordsmen, the current system sucks for the people who want to be able to build a swordsman that wouldn't be an objectively-better swordsman if he'd become a wizard or cleric instead.

[Sereg]

So "play a super hero or get knotted" then?

A level 20 character IS a superhero. They are supposed to be over a thousand times more powerful than a normal person. That is what level 20 MEANS. If you don't want to be one, only play at low levels.

[Elves]

Like I said above, I think there are two things that can make fighter as superhero much more palatable to people who dislike the idea at first listen. First, maintaining the class's modularity and lack of any imposed flavor; the super-powers should be components. Second, fluff text that gives a mythical and relatively concrete justification for these abilities. The second one goes a long way, since having no fluff justification for their super-powers, only the mechanical one of leveling up, does feel clinical.

[Silvercrys]

So "play a super hero or get knotted" then?The thing is that, from a literary/narrative perspective, the Boromir/Aragorn/Ned Stark/Tanis Half-Elven/Generic-Guy-with-a-Sword-or-Whatever character is fundamentally not equipped to fight multiple Balrogs to a stand still, or bend the plot over his knee like a level 20 Wizard is. It isn't, to my mind, a reasonable request to be "mundane guy with a sword" past level, like, 9. CR 15+ creatures are mythical legends that need mighty heroes to slay them, not just "mundane heroes with sharper sticks" (Smaug excepted, but his death always felt like a plot device or deus ex machina because it was fundamentally impossible for the dwarves-plus-Bilbo to actually beat him). And those heroes need to be able to exert similar levels of narrative control as each other, otherwise the Fighter ends up being the Wizard's bodyguard/cohort and not a character in their own right. Some people are okay with that, but it's a bad system.

Heck, this actually happened in Dragonlance, right? The whole party was basically tagging along with Raistlin, all ostensibly the same level, then they're on a boat drowning in a whirlpool and Raistlin gets to "nope" out of there and screw over the party because he's a wizard (with an Orb of Dragonkind, granted) while everyone else is stuck on the boat. That shouldn't happen.

Beowulf would have jumped off the boat, strangled a sea serpent with his bare hands while still wearing chainmail, and then swum back to shore under his own power. Tanis doesn't, because mundane DnD heroes need magic items or spellcasters to save them from extraordinary circumstances and Tanis has neither after Raistlin nopes out. At level 20 Raistlin could have used Greater Teleport without assistance from the orb. Tanis would still have drowned.

DnD has tried to paper over the problem by using the christmas tree of magic items and wealth by level to justify why the mundane is capable enough to stand with the wizard as an equal, but that just turns all the mundanes into Batman with a utility belt handy haversack containing a miscellaneous pile of magic stuff they've purchased or collected over their adventures, and hopefully that has whatever they need to squeak by while they rub shoulders with near omnipotent spellcasters. It gives the whole game a weird tone of like, eclectic hoarders digging through their list of items to see if anyone has a sunrod and covered in bandoliers containing random wands and potions because they aren't actually competent characters without magic items that let them pretend to be wizards. Those magic items allow them to drive the narrative, sometimes -- like a Rogue can UMD a scroll of Teleport -- but they cannot do so under their own power the way a spellcaster with Greater Teleport and Gate can.

[Aotrs Commander]

And while changing the current system would suck for the people who don't want to have to build super-complicated swordsmen, the current system sucks for the people who want to be able to build a swordsman that wouldn't be an objectively-better swordsman if he'd become a wizard or cleric instead.

Well, only if they insist that swordsman has to be a FIGHTER mechanically, instead of any of the other myriad options available (warblade, psywar etc etc, I mean, like, just totting up a couple of homebrew and 3.5 classes, I have about 40 and that's not including the umpteen more from PF, nor archtypes1), especially if you are in a "classes are mechanics, flavour as desired" environment.

(I mean, there's not really any excuse for core-only now in this day and age, given both 3.5 and PF1 are both effectively legacy systems (and PF has basically literally everything on their wiki) (and there are varius 3.5 wikis as well) unless the DM wants to do that (and if he does, you're buggered playing a nonprimary caster anyway).)

Fighter 20, I feel, should be for the people that emphatically DON'T want to have a complex build, or want to have a simple concept. (I'm trying to avoid using Batman as the example, but he's kind of a poor one, but let's say, I dunno, Punisher or something.)



Now, I'll be among the first to say 3.5 vanilla Fighter is Not Good Enough, but there is a limit to how far I think it needs to be buffed. I just flat don't think Fighter needs to be Warblade (et al), because Warblade is Warblade.



(At the moment, doing all these shiny classes up into 3.A, doing a pure fighter is the last thing on my mind, but I have more than once considered a character which is to see how far I can bend 3.Aotrs' Fighter 20's 31 feats into something unusual, just as a pure character-building challenge.)




A level 20 character IS a superhero. They are supposed to be over a thousand times more powerful than a normal person. That is what level 20 MEANS. If you don't want to be one, only play at low levels.

I just think saying "no, you cannot play Angry Man With Swords as a character concept, you have to have (discrete activated not-spells) super-powers at high level" is a little bit off. Especially as the sort of person who will want to play that sort of thing very likely ISN'T as keen as you or I, and just wants to turn up with his mates and roll some dice, fundementally. Saying "only play at low levels" is in that instance is basically akin to saying to that player, "don't play," (and in the worst case, with "casual" added in the voice of an 17th century aristocrat or something...)



(I will also note that I, personally, as DM have run games into low Epic with a pure fighter-with-more-feats in the party and had no issues. It's all about the game paradigm.)



1Starfinder's, what, seven, and comparitively under-developed archtypes feels absolutely painful. We REALLY need those extra classes coming soon by the time we have the next SF party, we've already has all but like, one character class in the first party, and that's only because we've had soldier twice...

[Silvercrys]

Yeah I don't think they need to be discrete, activated not-spells.

You could have a feat called "seven league leap" at level ... 13 that allows you to move at overland speeds in 1 minute by making athletics checks or something. Stuff along those lines.

[patchyman]

In other words, a 5th level fighter should still represent the classic Fafhrd- or Conan-ish martial hero archetypes, but a 15th level fighter should instead represent the (arguably more) classic Hercules-, Cú Chulainn- or Hulk-ish martial superhero archetypes.

To me, in a certain sense, this is the Franchise Original Sin. Early in the design (and codified in subsequent editions), Arneson and Gygax decided that an epic level fighter was not going to look like Paul Bunyan, Samson or Achilles, and narrowing this archetype space is now the standard.

The really ironic thing is that they went in the opposite direction for wizards: broadening the archetype space from the get-go. If you look at a lot of pre-D&D mythological wizards, most of them were extremely specialized: Circe the Enchantress wasn’t throwing lightning bolts and Illusionists pretty much stuck to illusions.

If abjurers were great at protecting the party but relied on fighters to do any damage, or enchanters had no options for defence except rely on martials, I think wizards would remain extremely powerful but we’d get much fewer threads like this one.

[AvatarVecna]

See and I don't think you need to have a complicated concept or complicated mechanics to become the kind of powerhouse a fighter (or barbarian, or rogue, or whatever) should be by the time they're 20th level, I just think the way they're built currently just...doesn't get them there. And more to the point, anything that would get them there tends to...not be well-received by the people who think the fighter is fine. If it's not achieved through pure training, it's not mundane, but if you achieve wizard-competitive results via nothing but training, it ends up being "too anime" for some people - which isn't incorrect, since there's quite a few characters scattered through anime that achieve absolutely staggering levels of physical capability unassisted by anything but elbow grease and determination.

If you're looking for a non-Batman example, I like using Samurai Jack as a measuring stick. :smallsmile: Probably not epic, but dealing with a Shapeshifting Master Of Darkness feels like he's probably on the cusp, and he's pretty capable in a bunch of iconic ways. But replicating him in-game is...difficult.

[Mr Adventurer]

To me, in a certain sense, this is the Franchise Original Sin. Early in the design (and codified in subsequent editions), Arneson and Gygax decided that an epic level fighter was not going to look like Paul Bunyan, Samson or Achilles, and narrowing this archetype space is now the standard.

Didn't early editions include titles for each level, with Fighters getting "Hero" at some point?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah. We are assuming way different ways of going about the game. I'm not thinking about hyper optmizers who dive deep into books and multiclass in everything to get what they want. I'm defending that you should not need to multiclass to have a Fighter be faster and have keener vision. I'm also defending you shouldn't need items for that. The base class should give you the basics of a supernaturally gifted body which, I argue, includes being faster and keener than others.

What you're asking for is everything in one package without having to put in any effort. The casters don't get to do that either. They have to actually learn their spell lists and how to select and use a good loadout. If they fail in that, they're typically -weaker- than a fighter in battle and just as uselss outside of it.

Fighter 20 is a master of arms. Barbarian 20 is the warrior of extraordinary physical ability. Monk 20 (more viable than its given credit for) is the elusive skirmisher. Knight 20 is the charismatic, honor-bound tank. Ranger 20 is the warrior who uses skill and mysticism to supplement his skill at arms.

If you want to be more than one of these things, you've gotta blend. That's part of using a class-based system with largely unrestricted multiclassing.

In anycase, the thing you're describing, if you refuse to engage with the system, is a warblade focused on diamond mind with a dash of stone dragon and tiger claw. Mithral plate, high-speed maneuvers, special senses, and the ability to smash through just about anything that gets in his way. You still need gear but that's a fundamental part of the game's paradigm and you're not getting around that no matter what class you play; warrior, caster, or skill-monkey.


I don't assume most tables or most people are able or willing to look into obscure books to get what they want. I myself do it and I let and tell my players to do it but I've been in groups that did all sorts of things, from banning anything beyond CRB/DMG and calling the PHB 2 "apocrypha" to allowing strange selections like Stormwrack and BoVE but forbid ToB. The options and splatbooks should exist to give options but the core should already suffice for most things. It's crazy to me when people argue like using Incarnum or item familiars is obvious and a solution to problems when most I've played with in my decade plus career don't really have any idea about what those things are. Unless you have some really obscure character concept, you shouldn't need to do this kind of optimization.

I'm arguing about what the system does as is. Various GMs monkeying about with it and screwing things up is -not- a flaw of the system. If you're still playing in this system today, it's not because you want rules light, straight-forward gaming. 5e exists and fills that niche far better while still being D&D. You're here because you -want- the complexity. You -want- the esoterica and apocrypha. That or you're just refusing to acknowledge that this system is -not- what you want and won't look elsewhere.

Most of what you've brought up can be found in four sources outside of core: sword and fist, complete warrior, tome of battle, and oriental adventures. To call any of those obscure is ridiculous.


I don't think that taking for granted that players will multiclass, much less multiclass well, is something we should do. Every class should be useful from 1 to 20 and should give a functional core in its 1 to 20. Hence, I firmly believe that a Fighter 20 should not need to multiclass to have everyone of his physical functions be better than an untrained individual. It's neither realistic nor fun to have a Fighter's speed not increase inside the class because, well, speed is a core part of battle and every soldier in the history of mankind trains to be faster. So how come the Fighter, who is defined as a ultimate sort of soldier, doesn't get faster than Joe, the Butcher?

Every PC class -is- useful from 1-20. They just don't all do all the things, not even the much vaunted wizard and cleric. Multiclassing is plainly taken as a granted by the system itself. Doing it well is a matter of player skill just like picking spells is. Same for gear selection. As for Joe and Fighter McStabface's relative speeds, I already covered that. McStabface isn't a high-speed warrior because he didn't choose to be. He chose to learn 15 different ways to make his sword dance like nobody else. You want to be fast, pick something else or multiclass. FFS, at least pick up martial study/stance for speed boosting maneuvers.

If all the warriors are blend of the flash, the hulk, and Zaran the Weapon Master (how's that for esoteric?) then what exactly are you asking of any -individual- class? Flavor? If they're all lightning fast, super strong, and can kill an elephant with a toothpick, what's the difference between a barbarian and a fighter and a knight?



As for ABP, I agree that it's a bandaid. A system like that should be better thought out and taken as an assumption of the system. That or the numbers should not be necessary period. The fact that a class needs a certain + by a certain level only exists because the designers want it to. But since fixing every single published monster would be a load of work, it's just easier to simply solve things player side.

Yep. That's what I said. Also, as I've said; the -necessary- +X items will come to you unless your DM deliberately withholds them or you're just -remarkably- unlucky with the treasure tables. And I do mean miraculously, never-bother-with-a-lottery unlucky.


As for you last example, I'd argue that in an ABP based system, a weapon with some incredible property (like Excalibur or the Gae Bolg) would be much more impressive and, sure, game changing. But then again, I think that's a good thing and that magical items should be impactful and not just a requirement.

I already outlined the problem with that but I'll repeat it here; if -all- of the magical gear is special, then your access -must- be curtailed compared to the default and then -all- you have is your class. The tropes that the classes play to mean that the casters -will- have a much bigger toybox unless you either beat the casters with a nerf cannon or give the non-casters so many toys that they become casters in all but name. If you want casters that are castery and warriors that aren't then you -need- magical equipment to bridge the divide.


By this point we are obviously coming from completely different game and game design philosophies so I think there's not gonna be much of a middle. If I was to design an D&D edition I'd never allow a Fighter to be like it is. Then again, I do believe classes need a conceptual revamp so I probably wouldn't even have a "fighter".

Honestly, I get the distinct impression you'd be happier with an altogether classless system or something close. Have you seen the generic classes in UA? If you combine that with ABP and lift the epic restriction from most epic feats, I think you'll end up about where you want to be. Certainly much closer than the system as it stands with either 3e or PF.

You're still going to have a massive problem in that the spellcasting feature does far more than any combination of other features available but I've been led to believe that spheres of power in place of vancian casting can help quite a lot there. No idea how accurate that idea is though.



RE; the basic sword-guy discussion:

The system itself acknowledges that guys like Boromir et al aren't high level characters. Minis Handbook goes into detail about what typical warriors in rank-and-file units look like. They're all minimal level. Same source also says in no uncertain terms that level 11+ characters can change the tide of a war single-handedly and are -not- appropriate to running the simulation of clashing armies.

If you want to play Gimli, even WotC acknowledges you should be at level 10 or less.

A level 20 barbarian in the throws of his rage can have as much as str 30 with the only optimization being that he started at 18 and pushed it as he leveled. No gear, no multiclassing, no feats. That's a guy that can pick up a mid-sized sedan over his head (max load 1600 lbs). It's no incredible hulk but it's a bit beyond Captain America. He's also got around 255 hp and DR 5/- so he can take a -massive- beating; enough to outright kill about 20 normal men. That's strong enough to simply bull through an inch thick iron plate on 1 attempt in 20; not break it down with attacks, just rip through it with raw power.

I sometimes think that a lot of these complaints are based in having a poor idea of what even basic high level warriors actually -can- do.

[Sereg]

High level and superpowers are literally the same thing. That's the point ai am making. Again, every 2 levels you are supposed to DOUBLE your power.

And yes, they don't have to be not-spells. New feats is how I do it. Feats that let you jump between continents. Feats that let you smash through walls of force. Feats that let you burrow. Feats that let you create earthquakes by stomping, change the weather by waving a hand, scream as a sonic breath weapon, charge anywhere in line of sight as an immediate action, use ballista as crossbows, rip castles out the ground and carry them, run on water, charge through walls, throw your allies to the next city you need to travel to, create masterwork weapons by crushing metal with your bare hands, shoot arrows through the planet to snipe someone on the other side, grab teleports out the air, do damage to the caster who summoned/raised/transmuted/enchanted the minions l you stabbed, steal/reverse/dispel the buffs of the person you attack etc.


Justification? You have honed your body far beyond what people are capable of IRL and you live in a magic world, interacting with it all the time. You still aren't casting. You are just that strong/fast/dextrous/tough/accurate etc.

[ThatMoonGuy]

STUFF
I'm gonna quote everything because editing on phone is too annoying.

Yes, I do prefer classless or at least an hybrid like Spheres. But you can have classless with weak characters or strong ones. Balance in classless point buy is also fee harder to control, to the point that it may not even be worthy controlling too much. But that's neither here nor there.

As for wanting everything in one package. Well, yes. There having different "packages" for "fighting guy" is arbitrary from the get go. When 3.5 was being designed someone got up and said that there would be Barbarians and Fighters and that they would differ in such and such way. It doesn't need to be like this and there have been many discussions on why it's a bad idea to have things be like that. But since you've gone and done it then you should at least make sure that the classes have the same level of utility when they are on the same level. If that's not the case then you have a problem. Having outside fixes for it does not make the class itself better.

I repeat, I'm firmly on the side that the base class should give you a vast array of abilities and if your class concept is being "a grand warrior" I expect you to excel in warrior like things which just happen to include movement and senses.

I also believe that a system must try to avoid traps as much as it can and be capable of dealing with DMs who just are not that good or knowledgeable. All it takes is a single bad experience for someone to decide to drop a system for something else so it's on the designers best interest to try to reduxe the chances that this will happen.

I mean, if you have a class you have the whole thing charted 1 to 20. You can decide everything in it and when those things will get into play so why not put all the necessities there? Why make things harder than they have to be? Why limit the martial characters so much while giving so much leeway to Casters?

As for the sourcebooks, ToB gets nose turns and the others are simply not something that someone from outside the hobby would even know about. I'm not thinking just about us silly nerds who argue about a decade plus old edition on forums but also about the random people who play D&D and don't have time to delve into hardcore stuff. My current group, for one, includes a doctor, a programmer, a teacher and two PhD candidates. Those are not people who have the kind of time to go deep in build research but that do eel when their characters are useless and that's pretty frustrating for them. Their last game before I assumed as DM died because some of them constantly felt they were being pushed out of the spotlight. A bad DM can screw any system, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean that all system are equally easy to screw up. Part of why 5e is popular is just how easier it is to DM given the simplicity of classes and tightness of numbers. You know that you can throw level appropriate things at players and they're likely to succeed. And that's coming from someone who doesn't like 5e, mind you.

[Karl Aegis]

High level and superpowers are literally the same thing. That's the point ai am making. Again, every 2 levels you are supposed to DOUBLE your power.

And yes, they don't have to be not-spells. New feats is how I do it. Feats that let you jump between continents. Feats that let you smash through walls of force. Feats that let you burrow. Feats that let you create earthquakes by stomping, change the weather by waving a hand, scream as a sonic breath weapon, charge anywhere in line of sight as an immediate action, use ballista as crossbows, rip castles out the ground and carry them, run on water, charge through walls, throw your allies to the next city you need to travel to, create masterwork weapons by crushing metal with your bare hands, shoot arrows through the planet to snipe someone on the other side, grab teleports out the air, do damage to the caster who summoned/raised/transmuted/enchanted the minions l you stabbed, steal/reverse/dispel the buffs of the person you attack etc.


Justification? You have honed your body far beyond what people are capable of IRL and you live in a magic world, interacting with it all the time. You still aren't casting. You are just that strong/fast/dextrous/tough/accurate etc.

Those are items. Spending feats on things you can buy with money is bad for the same reason that getting an item as a class feature is bad. You just get less resources overall.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm gonna quote everything because editing on phone is too annoying.

Yes, I do prefer classless or at least an hybrid like Spheres. But you can have classless with weak characters or strong ones. Balance in classless point buy is also fee harder to control, to the point that it may not even be worthy controlling too much. But that's neither here nor there.

Now hold up. If unbalanced characters in a classless system is okay why is it suddenly not okay in a class-based system? In either system you still select the discrete components of your character from a pool of available options. Why should an imbalance in combining those choices be any more or less okay just because one of those choices is class?


As for wanting everything in one package. Well, yes. There having different "packages" for "fighting guy" is arbitrary from the get go. When 3.5 was being designed someone got up and said that there would be Barbarians and Fighters and that they would differ in such and such way. It doesn't need to be like this and there have been many discussions on why it's a bad idea to have things be like that. But since you've gone and done it then you should at least make sure that the classes have the same level of utility when they are on the same level. If that's not the case then you have a problem. Having outside fixes for it does not make the class itself better.

It's no more arbitrary for barbarian and fighter to be different things than it is wizard and sorcerer or cleric. They all play to different archetypes that have one or another degree of overlap with classes in the same general category. Characters (not classes) built to the same degree of system mastery -do- have fairly similar levels of utility at any given level. This is a core part of the problem I see when people have this discussion. They arbitrarily throw out everything -but- class for no valid reason. "The DM might screw with one of the parts that's important to that class/ catgegory of classes" is no more valid for screwing with WBL or race choices than it is for spell selection or PrC availability. A wizard played absolutely to the hilt in a core-only, no wealth environment won't be -as- screwed as the fighter but he's still screwed when it comes to pretty much anything between levels 7 and 16.

Seriously, show me the spellbook of a level 10 core wizard who's never got to add anything past level ups or the standard loadout of a level 10 cleric and then, after its finished, compare it to the MM entries for CRs 9-11. There -will- be gaps. A theoretical wizard or cleric will have solutions to any of them but no -one- character will have solutions to all of them without supplementary resources, particularly if he's supposed to face 4 in a day. That's before you even consider non-combat challenges like traps or diplomatic encounters.


I repeat, I'm firmly on the side that the base class should give you a vast array of abilities and if your class concept is being "a grand warrior" I expect you to excel in warrior like things which just happen to include movement and senses.

There is no universal concept of a "grand warrior." Some are fast, some are strong, some have extrarodinary senses, some have technical skill at arms, some have inherent mystical power. Others have a combination of two or more of those but giving all warriors all of them just homogenizes them into something bland. I like chicken, fish, mashed potatoes, and apple pie. That doesn't mean I want them all thrown into a blender and served up for every meal.


I also believe that a system must try to avoid traps as much as it can and be capable of dealing with DMs who just are not that good or knowledgeable. All it takes is a single bad experience for someone to decide to drop a system for something else so it's on the designers best interest to try to reduxe the chances that this will happen.

This is common wisdom but it's also wrong. D&D and TTRPGs in general always have been niche products. Attempts to appeal to a wider market risks alienating existing customers and invites competition from companies arleady in the more rules-light, skill-based gaming space. There is a market space that nerds like us who like to book-dive and play with system complexities occupy and 3e was built to cater to us. WotC's attempt to capture a wider market, creating 4e, went so spectacularly poorly that it turned what had been a supplementary company, Paizo, into a direct competitor with the creation of pathfinder.

3e was built in such a way as to reward system mastery and that persisted throughout most of the run. That was a feature, not a bug. If it's a feature you don't want or that you feel detracts from the game as a whole, you picked the wrong TTRPG in the first place.


I mean, if you have a class you have the whole thing charted 1 to 20. You can decide everything in it and when those things will get into play so why not put all the necessities there? Why make things harder than they have to be? Why limit the martial characters so much while giving so much leeway to Casters?

First, class is only one aspect of the character. You can't play just a fighter, you have to be a human figter or an elf fighter or a warforged fighter. Neither can you play a fighter without a weapon just as you can't play any of the casting classes without picking a race and having a key item like a spellbook or holy symbol.

As for why not have any of them do everything (except druid, oops), because there's no point in having classes at that point. You may as well just have the UA generic classes and be done with it. Classes were built to fulfill certain archetypes;

Bard = well, bard. The rogueish gatherer of stories and dabbler in all things.
Barbarian = Savage warrior that relies on pure ability more than skill.
Cleric = Servant of his god and travelling priest that performs miracles.
Druid = Servant and guardian of nature that draws on her mystsical might.
Fighter = Master technician in armed combat.
Monk = Mystic warrior in pursuit of perfection of mind and body.
Paladin = Holy crusader for good and order.
Ranger = Master woodsman and mildly mystical communor with nature.
Rogue = Master sneak-thief and back-stabber.
Sorcerer = Magic wielder whose power is innate in their blood wield it by talent.
Wizard = Studious sage of the mystical arts.

Now you can bend away from the obviously intended archetypes and refluff to an extent, as well as create other archetypes by combining these things but they what they are. You'll note none of them is something as simple as "guy who fights good."


As for the sourcebooks, ToB gets nose turns and the others are simply not something that someone from outside the hobby would even know about. I'm not thinking just about us silly nerds who argue about a decade plus old edition on forums but also about the random people who play D&D and don't have time to delve into hardcore stuff. My current group, for one, includes a doctor, a programmer, a teacher and two PhD candidates. Those are not people who have the kind of time to go deep in build research but that do eel when their characters are useless and that's pretty frustrating for them. Their last game before I assumed as DM died because some of them constantly felt they were being pushed out of the spotlight. A bad DM can screw any system, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean that all system are equally easy to screw up. Part of why 5e is popular is just how easier it is to DM given the simplicity of classes and tightness of numbers. You know that you can throw level appropriate things at players and they're likely to succeed. And that's coming from someone who doesn't like 5e, mind you.

You can't have it both ways. You can either have your ivory tower game design with myriad options of varying degrees of efficacy and lots of moving parts or you can have something straight-forward and simple for the casuals. Trying to do both is only going to frustrate both groups.

Your group is almost certainly better off with something that's not 3e or PF. I understand you don't like 5e, I'm not a fan either, but that doesn't change the fact it's probaby a better fit for the rest of your group. Trying to turn 3e into a frankenstein mish-mash of the two seems like an awful lot of work to address the fact neither of them is perfect for you but your mish-mash won't be perfect or even good for some other group like me and mine; two hard-core 3e grognards and optimizers, one more with a similar disposition but little experience with 3e, and a casual who's perfectly willing to accept help from the rest of us.

If you want to build something else altogether, no one's stopping you but complaining that 3e is not that thing strikes me as missing the point.

3e/PF is a system mastery oriented, high-complexity, class based game. If that's not what you want, starting from scratch is probably more practical than trying to change it into a highly balanced, simple, skill-based game.

[Peat]

I pretty much agree with the consensus. I'm neither against strongre Fighters, nor non-mundane Martials, I just don't think they necessarily need to be the same thing.

Fighters could most certainly use a leg up (e.g. +2 skill points and more class skills and/or a Bonus Feat per level, with some of them not locked to Fighter bonus feats), so they are enjoyable to play in their own right, but they don't need to become Hulk, Hercules, someone from DBZ or what have you.

They provide an option for a purely mundane class and players wanting that should keep their options. That said, players wanting their character to resemble the above mentioned archetypes, instead of Conan, Aragorn and their ilk, should also get the chance to do so, of course. I just don't share this forums obsession with the Wizard - Fighter parity, for one simple reason: This edition doesn't lock you into a particular class - with ~50 base classes and ~500 PrCs that you can mix and match at every single level, one shouldn't be hang up on choosing an inferior option at every level and trying to measure up to the stronger option. S/He should be looking for combinations that provide the desired effect.

I guess my questions here are

a) Is there anything wrong with the idea that the Fighter has access to ACFs that make them non-mundane and potentially quite powerful in a few fields without having to take them?

b) Is it desirable that the vast majority of martial archetypes, including non-mudane ones, should be achievable by a single class Fighter?

To me, there is indeed nothing wrong with A. If they've given that sort of flexibility to Barbarian and Ranger, which can be built completely mundane with the right ACFs or with a high level of non-mundanity and power with the right ACFs, why not Fighter? The option for mundane Fighters is still there. It's just now there's an option for more powerful non-mundane Fighters too. Paizo didn't go mad doing it with PF, but they do it a bit and things are just fine.

B is maybe a trickier one. I think for some people, Fighters are meant to be simple to play mundanes only; go play something else if you don't want them. For others, Fighters are the flagship martial class , and they shouldn' have to look at other options to get a decent character. For some, this is what Prestige Classes are for. For others, single classing is desirable.

But ultimately, while saying Yes to B might trample on some people's conceptual space, it shouldn't really trample on many games. And saying Yes to it would help some games.



Probably when it comes to Cú Chulainn, yeah. But I cannot see how similar issues would somehow reduce the viability of the basic design concept/idea, because if one archetype doesn't do it for you, you could simply replace or mix it some other powerful non-caster archetype(s) less exclusively combat focused (plenty available).

True. A fighter with, say, Finn Mac Cool's ability to gain knowledge by sucking his thumb and heal people by giving them a drink of water would gain a lot of flexibility. There are probably a ton of other possible examples.



I know quite a few Playgrounders have made own attempts - and/or have been involved in a few open group attempts - to make such a skill-based "utility spell compensation" system for non-casters. Those I've been involved in or read about have unfortunately had very little success so far, most notably because it requires many many more hours of work and far more drastic changes to the existing system than what one might first assume.

One less time-consuming option could be copying the many decent to great related abilities found in Spheres of Might, reducing the amount of work required to put together new stuff (which will most certainly still be needed, and lots of it). Maybe offering these as feats, along with giving only non-caster classes related specific feat slots every few levels?

I can believe that and reckon it would probably take an edition overhaul for it to work... but I think it'd be an ideal to hold aloft as where any future iterations of 3.5-esque games should go.

But you're probably right about stealing from SoM being better for most people.

[ThatMoonGuy]

Now hold up. If unbalanced characters in a classless system is okay why is it suddenly not okay in a class-based system? In either system you still select the discrete components of your character from a pool of available options. Why should an imbalance in combining those choices be any more or less okay just because one of those choices is class?

The difference is without classes you're not limiting the choices the players can make and handholding them. Classless systems are fundamentally chaotic by definition. But at least there I can make a cyborg triceratops Wizard who goes into rages and has multiple personalities. From level 1. If you're going to fit me into a class mold (I e. Cut feeedom) the least I expect is that the classes are balanced.




It's no more arbitrary for barbarian and fighter to be different things than it is wizard and sorcerer or cleric. They all play to different archetypes that have one or another degree of overlap with classes in the same general category. Characters (not classes) built to the same degree of system mastery -do- have fairly similar levels of utility at any given level. This is a core part of the problem I see when people have this discussion. They arbitrarily throw out everything -but- class for no valid reason. "The DM might screw with one of the parts that's important to that class/ catgegory of classes" is no more valid for screwing with WBL or race choices than it is for spell selection or PrC availability. A wizard played absolutely to the hilt in a core-only, no wealth environment won't be -as- screwed as the fighter but he's still screwed when it comes to pretty much anything between levels 7 and 16.

I agree. That's kind of my point. It's all arbitrary and it should all be rebuilt from scratch. WBL and assumptions be damned, the core of D&D is just the concept of classes. My biggest disappointment with PF 2e was that it didn't do away with the assumptions from 3e and made just three or four highly customisable classes (Fighter Mage, Thief) with everything else being feats.



Seriously, show me the spellbook of a level 10 core wizard who's never got to add anything past level ups or the standard loadout of a level 10 cleric and then, after its finished, compare it to the MM entries for CRs 9-11. There -will- be gaps. A theoretical wizard or cleric will have solutions to any of them but no -one- character will have solutions to all of them without supplementary resources, particularly if he's supposed to face 4 in a day. That's before you even consider non-combat challenges like traps or diplomatic encounters.

I'm not denying this. But the cost for a Wizard to learn how to fly and the cost for a fighter to do so are different. Learning a spell is vastly cheaper than loading on gear. And that's not counting on all other issues martials suffer from (no out of combat capacities, innumerable feat traps, low narrative impact). They getting the short straw on WBL on top of all that is just cruel.



There is no universal concept of a "grand warrior." Some are fast, some are strong, some have extrarodinary senses, some have technical skill at arms, some have inherent mystical power. Others have a combination of two or more of those but giving all warriors all of them just homogenizes them into something bland. I like chicken, fish, mashed potatoes, and apple pie. That doesn't mean I want them all thrown into a blender and served up for every meal.

Tell that to the guys who wrote the Fighter class. Because it is often described a the quintessential warrior but of all the things a soldier was/is trained to do, they don't excel at that many. Just look up the training curriculum of a marine or of a greek soldier and you'll notice that it's much more than "hitting people with weapons".

Also, there is a grand warrior. Just look up at the number of characters who are described as "peak human" or "super soldier". They all have a lot of common aspects (faster, stronger, more attentive). It is a concept that exists in fiction and has since way before D&D came around. It's as real as the idea of a "studious mage".




This is common wisdom but it's also wrong. D&D and TTRPGs in general always have been niche products. Attempts to appeal to a wider market risks alienating existing customers and invites competition from companies arleady in the more rules-light, skill-based gaming space. There is a market space that nerds like us who like to book-dive and play with system complexities occupy and 3e was built to cater to us. WotC's attempt to capture a wider market, creating 4e, went so spectacularly poorly that it turned what had been a supplementary company, Paizo, into a direct competitor with the creation of pathfinder.

I don't know, I think 5e is doing pretty well in the "market to a lot of people" side of things so it's definitely possible. But even if what you said was true, the fact remains that a lot of people who are into RPGs simply pick up only the core books and nothing else. Again, 5e is proof that the "low number of splats" model works pretty well.



3e was built in such a way as to reward system mastery and that persisted throughout most of the run. That was a feature, not a bug. If it's a feature you don't want or that you feel detracts from the game as a whole, you picked the wrong TTRPG in the first place.

System mastery is something that will happen in a way or another. But having a spread as large as CW Samurai - Wizard is ridiculous. Again, if you're chaining me to a mold at least make the molds balanced.




First, class is only one aspect of the character. You can't play just a fighter, you have to be a human figter or an elf fighter or a warforged fighter. Neither can you play a fighter without a weapon just as you can't play any of the casting classes without picking a race and having a key item like a spellbook or holy symbol.

Who said that last part? You could totally make a Wizard that doesn't need a spell book or a cleric that doesn't need a symbol. WoD has those things and so does Spheres. Now, in D&D you can't play those things but that's an arbitrary decision on the side of the designers. Were them to decide that a Fighter could function without a magical weapon, they totally could.


Fighter is the "guy who fights good". That's the definition you've given just with fancier words.



two hard-core 3e grognards and optimizers, one more with a similar disposition but little experience with 3e, and a casual who's perfectly willing to accept help from the rest of us.

Yeah, we're never going to agree on more than a few fleeting points. All the things you seem to appreciate are exactly what I despise in 3.5e and the exact reason why I play only with SoP and PoW. I like the D20 core well enough but have nothing but loathing for a system that allows things like "dodge", "weapon focus" and the sorry excuse for a class that's the Samurai exist.



If you want to build something else altogether, no one's stopping you but complaining that 3e is not that thing strikes me as missing the point.

What? I thought we were trying to build something new. The whole point of this discussion is to try to come up with a hack for d20 that kept the core rules but redefined the classes. I know 3.5e exists - I even played it! It just so happens that OP wants a 3.5.5 so we may as well talk about the silly assumptions and old fashioned game design decisions Gygax & co. made while thinking about this wonderfully messed up game we love.

[Sereg]

Those are items. Spending feats on things you can buy with money is bad for the same reason that getting an item as a class feature is bad. You just get less resources overall.

Firstly, there are items that do all that? I was unaware. Which items?

Secondly, it's trading company one resource for another you cannot have stolen from you. Getting something free is better, but it's not inherently bad. The real problem is the scarcity of feats as a resource, which is why I increase their acquisition to pathfinder rates. In addition, as I said, I give fighters a bonus feat every level with 2 at first and 3 at twentieth. That's a lot of feats. But it's a lot more even than it sounds, because I said every level they can also trade a feat, and if this causes them to lose prerequisites, they are treated as still having that feat for all purposes (including being able to use it) without it using up a feat slot. So, a human fighter can effectively have 50 feats.

[Lucas Yew]

Using core only 3.5 rules. Both Fighter 20 and Wizard 20 with PC gear are a full CR 20. And one of them is an obvious XP Pinãta Boss in relative to the other, assuming optimal daily preparations.

In a classless game or a class based game without implied balance proposals (such as the 3.X CR system), magic trumping no magic would be a no-brainer, though. If (A > 0) and (B > 0), (A+B > A) is true all the time, it's just mathematical truth.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The difference is without classes you're not limiting the choices the players can make and handholding them. Classless systems are fundamentally chaotic by definition. But at least there I can make a cyborg triceratops Wizard who goes into rages and has multiple personalities. From level 1. If you're going to fit me into a class mold (I e. Cut feeedom) the least I expect is that the classes are balanced.

There it is. I've found the problem, one of them anyway. If you were restricted to one class and only one class or perhaps 3 at most (primary, secondary, prestige) then you'd have a point. That's not the case in this system. You get one class -per level- of your choice and some reward sticking with them more than others. The only mechanism that consistently punishes you for extreme amounts of multiclassing does so in a way that's not just negligible but, since you want to bring common practice into the argument, typically ignored.

Your freedom is exactly as curtailed as you choose for it to be for the most part. Classes just give more structure to progress in the system compared to a purely skill based system.



I agree. That's kind of my point. It's all arbitrary and it should all be rebuilt from scratch. WBL and assumptions be damned, the core of D&D is just the concept of classes. My biggest disappointment with PF 2e was that it didn't do away with the assumptions from 3e and made just three or four highly customisable classes (Fighter Mage, Thief) with everything else being feats.

Yeah, there's not a whole lot of room left for this discussion to fill out if this is where you're at. Best you're going to do is UA's generics and the two PF spheres things. Can't help thinking your characters are gonna be a bit samey though.




I'm not denying this. But the cost for a Wizard to learn how to fly and the cost for a fighter to do so are different. Learning a spell is vastly cheaper than loading on gear. And that's not counting on all other issues martials suffer from (no out of combat capacities, innumerable feat traps, low narrative impact). They getting the short straw on WBL on top of all that is just cruel.

Yeah, it's a lot more expensive for a fighter to gain flight than a wizard. It's also a lot more expensive for a wizard to learn to fight than it is for a fighter. Flight by race bypasses the former issue entirely though.


Tell that to the guys who wrote the Fighter class. Because it is often described a the quintessential warrior but of all the things a soldier was/is trained to do, they don't excel at that many. Just look up the training curriculum of a marine or of a greek soldier and you'll notice that it's much more than "hitting people with weapons".

I'm a fighter in real life (not the D&D class, obviously :smalltongue:) and have studied every aspect of war since I was a little kid. I know very well what goes into making a soldier from the inception of professional soldiery to the present. I also know a little something about some athletics world records and a bit about comics to boot. As it currently stands a high level fighter -is- far beyond human norms even before you gear them up. A fighter 20 is on just about the same level as Captain America.

Most fighters aren't common soldiers from go and they're certainly not that by even level 10. By level 20 you can play dynasty warriors with an army of standard soldiers without magical gear.


Also, there is a grand warrior. Just look up at the number of characters who are described as "peak human" or "super soldier". They all have a lot of common aspects (faster, stronger, more attentive). It is a concept that exists in fiction and has since way before D&D came around. It's as real as the idea of a "studious mage".

There are warriors who were grand but there is no one grand warrior. Not unless you hodge-podge a bunch of them together, which you seem to -really- want to do.



I don't know, I think 5e is doing pretty well in the "market to a lot of people" side of things so it's definitely possible. But even if what you said was true, the fact remains that a lot of people who are into RPGs simply pick up only the core books and nothing else. Again, 5e is proof that the "low number of splats" model works pretty well.

I didn't say there was no room for rules-light systems. I said that it's a different space than D&D was typically marketed to and the fact they recovered doesn't change the fact they made a major misstep. The D&D name carries a -lot- of weight, enough to float them through that rough patch, it seems.


System mastery is something that will happen in a way or another. But having a spread as large as CW Samurai - Wizard is ridiculous. Again, if you're chaining me to a mold at least make the molds balanced.

CW's samurai isn't great but it's not useless garbage. It has a decent smite ability and gets several decent feats at low level. The intimidation oriented abilities it gets later could be better but they're not nothing. I won't deny you need to push the other non-class aspects of a CW samurai to make the most of it though. The gap between it and wizard isn't dramatically bigger than that between wizard and any other warrior though. And as I've said throughout, that gap isn't as big as common forum wisdom would have us believe.



Who said that last part? You could totally make a Wizard that doesn't need a spell book or a cleric that doesn't need a symbol. WoD has those things and so does Spheres. Now, in D&D you can't play those things but that's an arbitrary decision on the side of the designers. Were them to decide that a Fighter could function without a magical weapon, they totally could.

In another game, sure. In this one, no. A wizard with no book is only a wizard until he expends the last spell he currently has prepared. Then he's a commoner in a funny outfit. Clerics without their holy symbols are just a pile of HD that are near identical to the humanoid racial HD. He'll still need the same gear as a warrior to fight nearly as well unless he can get a new holy symbol. Even the druid, who fares best in this comparison, is just a bear or a t-rex without his holy symbol.

There are ways around each of those problems outside of core, of course, but they're there.



Fighter is the "guy who fights good". That's the definition you've given just with fancier words.

Those fancier words mean something, dude. Fighting is about height, weight, reach, physical ability, and technical skill. Now this system abstracts the first 3 unless the difference is dramatic but the last two are represented by ability scores and the combination of BAB and feats. A barbarian relies on relatively moderate skill at arms and his prodigious physical ability while the fighter relies on his much greater technical skill to make up for the fact his physical ability isn't as tremendous as a barbarian's (though still beyond the human norms).


Yeah, we're never going to agree on more than a few fleeting points. All the things you seem to appreciate are exactly what I despise in 3.5e and the exact reason why I play only with SoP and PoW. I like the D20 core well enough but have nothing but loathing for a system that allows things like "dodge", "weapon focus" and the sorry excuse for a class that's the Samurai exist.

I suspect you're right. Still, for the edification of onlookers, I've gotta make my case. The things I appreciate about 3e and, to a certain extent, PF are precisely the mountain of options that allow you to build a virtually limitless number of characters that are all fairly distinct from one another at a whole range of complexity levels and power levels. Homogenizing everything works pretty strongly against that.


What? I thought we were trying to build something new. The whole point of this discussion is to try to come up with a hack for d20 that kept the core rules but redefined the classes. I know 3.5e exists - I even played it! It just so happens that OP wants a 3.5.5 so we may as well talk about the silly assumptions and old fashioned game design decisions Gygax & co. made while thinking about this wonderfully messed up game we love.

As I recall, the OP wanted to know how essentially boosting the crap out of the non-casters base numbers and class feature acquisition would effect overall game balance (poorly, btw).

I was largely defending the system as it exists and commenting on how certain changes would affect it, either positively or negatively, IMO.

You seem to be hell-bent on completely rewriting it from the ground up. Good luck with that. It seems to me that it goes well beyond the scope of this discussion though.

I think that's probably about as far as you and I can go here but I'm still open to further discussion if you like.

[Karl Aegis]

Firstly, there are items that do all that? I was unaware. Which items?

Secondly, it's trading company one resource for another you cannot have stolen from you. Getting something free is better, but it's not inherently bad. The real problem is the scarcity of feats as a resource, which is why I increase their acquisition to pathfinder rates. In addition, as I said, I give fighters a bonus feat every level with 2 at first and 3 at twentieth. That's a lot of feats. But it's a lot more even than it sounds, because I said every level they can also trade a feat, and if this causes them to lose prerequisites, they are treated as still having that feat for all purposes (including being able to use it) without it using up a feat slot. So, a human fighter can effectively have 50 feats.

Orb of Storms, Ring of Water Walking, Helm of Teleportation, Anklets of Translocation...

[RatElemental]

Who said that last part? You could totally make a Wizard that doesn't need a spell book or a cleric that doesn't need a symbol. WoD has those things and so does Spheres. Now, in D&D you can't play those things but that's an arbitrary decision on the side of the designers. Were them to decide that a Fighter could function without a magical weapon, they totally could.


You actually can play a wizard who doesn't need a spellbook in 3.5, it's called the easy bake wizard. just need to take eidetic spellcaster ACF and bob's your uncle. Most builds recommend a bunch of ways to get more spells for free but that's the core of it. In pathfinder I believe there's a way to integrate your holy symbol into your armor/shield too for clerics.

[DEMON]

I guess my questions here are

a) Is there anything wrong with the idea that the Fighter has access to ACFs that make them non-mundane and potentially quite powerful in a few fields without having to take them?

b) Is it desirable that the vast majority of martial archetypes, including non-mudane ones, should be achievable by a single class Fighter?

To me, there is indeed nothing wrong with A. If they've given that sort of flexibility to Barbarian and Ranger, which can be built completely mundane with the right ACFs or with a high level of non-mundanity and power with the right ACFs, why not Fighter? The option for mundane Fighters is still there. It's just now there's an option for more powerful non-mundane Fighters too. Paizo didn't go mad doing it with PF, but they do it a bit and things are just fine.

B is maybe a trickier one. I think for some people, Fighters are meant to be simple to play mundanes only; go play something else if you don't want them. For others, Fighters are the flagship martial class , and they shouldn' have to look at other options to get a decent character. For some, this is what Prestige Classes are for. For others, single classing is desirable.

But ultimately, while saying Yes to B might trample on some people's conceptual space, it shouldn't really trample on many games. And saying Yes to it would help some games.


a - No, absolutely nothing.
b - I don't think so. Or rather than undesirable, I would say unnecessary. Fighters don't have to cover all the bases, since there are other available options for some, but I wouldn't have an issue with it, if they did.

[upho]

While I'd prefer to avoid a discussion about semantics, I unfortunately really think we need to agree on the definitions of certain words and their meaning in this context before we can discuss suitable capabilities for a 20th level fighter or other... uh... "class granting no more than 4/9 casting/manifesting/equivalent progression and whose majority of offensive abilities are dependent on Bab"?

On the plus side, by sorting out these definitions I'm pretty certain we'll also get a clearer picture of the different related opinions people have on the imbalance problem and ideas on how to solve it.


One who can be reasonably assumed to follow his world's rules of physics, despite other beings in that world being able to bend these rules to their will or ignore them. And that, by default, puts that character at a disadvantage againts those that can ignore said rules.

To give some examples that fit the bill for me: Conan, Boromir, Gawain (knights of the round table), Milva (The Witcher), most of the fairy tales' heroes of my youth (e.g. Ivan of the Father Frost story, Atreyu of the Neverending Story etc.)Thanks. This is thankfully also pretty much what I've assumed people refer to when talking about mundane characters.

And since I believe we can safely say the general power level of these "mundanes" are well below those of the average 7th level PC, my question is what we should call the category of PCs who started "mundane" (per the above definition) once they've gained 7+ levels. The same goes for the category of classes such PCs are based on, most importantly if those classes also grant a mechanical power to control the story on par with of that of game's current hypothetical average class.

IMO, "mundane" is by far the least appropriate of the more commonly used labels for this category of PCs and classes, as it's primary synonyms are "banal", "everyday", "humdrum" and similar, words which I find it very hard to believe anyone would use to describe the abilities of the fictional character examples above, much less a character with considerably more unique, powerful and obviously superhuman abilities. And the secondary normally rarely used "wordly", "non-esoteric" or "non-divine" definition of "mundane" hardly makes it any less inappropriate.

Both "non-caster" and "non-magic" are also problematic labels IMO, as some of the classes I believe should be included are "half-casters" with a 4/9 casting/equivalent progression and/or rely heavily on (Su) abilities (such as the 3.5 soulknife).

Personally, I think "martial" is the least inappropriate of the commonly used labels, even though I also find the normal definition "relating to fighting or war" not very applicable and/or to suggest a different set of classes (for example including many 6/9 casters/equivalents and excluding the rogue).


Y'all are conflating "mundane" with "realistic." In this context "mundane" refers specifically to a lack magical ability.It seems you're assuming that there are commonly accepted precise definitions of these words in this context, when in fact there's no such thing and the definitions are still highly subjective, fluid and vague.

The same goes for "magical ability". What is your definition of "magical" in this context, and does that definition have anything to do with the (im)possibility of a human having the same ability IRL? Is a barbarian's spell sunder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/spell-sunder-su) (Su) rage power "magical"? A figher's warrior spirit (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Fighter/#TOC-Advanced-Weapon-Training) (Su) AWT? How 'bout say an (Ex) ability granting Combat Reflexes based on Cha instead of Dex?

And it also seems you're conflating mechanical differences between classes - and perhaps the game's related labels such as (Ex) or (Su) - with the commonly accepted normal definitions of the words. But one of the most challenging aspects of designing more mechanically balanced new abilities for fighter types is making them (appear) "realistic" enough to meet the acceptable minimum of enough people who find "realism" a non-negotiable imperative for "mundane" abilities. IME these people also typically define "magical" abilities primarily as "unrealistic", and therefore not suitable for a "mundane" class. And I think these people are far from alone in seeing these words as virtually interchangeable in practice, meaning: "magic" is "unrealistic" and the opposite of "realistic" which is "mundane".


The other extreme of "barely better than a real human" is, indeed, too low but it's also not the case for non-casters as it stands. Even the simplest example, making a jump check, far outstrips what a real human being can do by even mid-level without optimizing specifcially for it. When you start peppering in martial maneuvers you go well into appropriate territory for what a non-caster character should be able to do at high levels.Why does it matter what a real human can do? Should non-caster abilities be more restricted by the abilities of real humans than caster abilities? And if you believe they should, how much C/MD at say 20th level do you think these unequal restrictions are worth?


Warblade vs titan.This doesn't tell us anything new, nor does it address any of the glaring weaknesses of high level martials. While the you're correct that the most egregious problem has never been about a lack of combat efficiency, with the possible exception of PoW initiators, high level martials do indeed typically also lack sufficient abilities to remain effective in higher level combat.

But dealing a single brute type of enemy with virtually no special abilities or spells to protect against melee hp damage is one of the few things they're typically still good at even in higher levels, and especially a brute like this 3.5 titan which is barely more than an over-sized giant with a CR hilariously far above the actual threat it poses. Also many less versatile and dynamic non-initiators with some rather basic damage optimization can easily beat the crap out of these kinds of foes.


The problem for balance never has been that high-level warriors can't fight adequately to their role. That's just a skewed idea that springs from forum users that see everything through the lens of high-op casters. The problem always has been that warriors don't do much outside of fighting.Try changing the giant to say a CR 21 true dragon who uses its very considerable arsenal of both spells and sheer physical combat prowess as brilliantly as you can (with the comparatively pathetic mental capabilities of your species), and the weaknesses of your warblade should become painfully obvious.


I don't remember Hercules threatening Chronos in the old stories.Yeah, 'cause Cronus was only an immortal divine being like all titans in Greek and Roman mythology. So what if he also happened to be the king of that second generation Greek deities and also the father of the king of the Olympians Zeus? I mean, he's still a titan, and then of course best represented as an over-CR:ed giant on steroids in 3.5, even if happens to be the God of Time, the Roman major deity Saturn, or whatever... :smallamused:


A clever player might find ways to apply their prodigious combat abilities to non-combat problems but you're still trying to turn a screw with a hammer when what you really need is a screwdriver.This is however largely true also IME.


To put it in perspective, you're asking why it is that The Incredible Hulk can't deal with the same type of problems as Doctor Strange.If you put what he's saying into the proper context, I believe you should see that what he's actually asking is why the Hulk is expected to play in the same party as Dr Strange and how the heck the Hulk's abilities are supposed to contribute to their party's success and impact the story roughly as much as Strange's abilities.



That's not a fault in the system, it's a design choice that you don't like for aesthetic reasons.I agree. But there are still some annoying flaws with the system, and I very heartily recommend all 3.5 or PF groups to use DSP's alternative "Big Six" item rules from Steelforge (https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Steelforge_Items) instead (and maybe also decrease the WBL for caster class levels and increase it non-caster class levels).

[ThatMoonGuy]

I think that's probably about as far as you and I can go here but I'm still open to further discussion if you like.

To be fair, I may have sounded (read?) more antagonistic than I intended. I do think 3.5/PF is playable game as is, at least if you're willing to use 3rd party material. Hell, I'd probably prefer playing first party only PF to 5e despite all that I've said. But when it comes down to building a new system or just hacking 3.PF into something new, examining assumptions is the first step, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, I do appreciate the discussion, sincerely so, and hope I didn't come up as way too aggressive on my points.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To be fair, I may have sounded (read?) more antagonistic than I intended. I do think 3.5/PF is playable game as is, at least if you're willing to use 3rd party material. Hell, I'd probably prefer playing first party only PF to 5e despite all that I've said. But when it comes down to building a new system or just hacking 3.PF into something new, examining assumptions is the first step, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, I do appreciate the discussion, sincerely so, and hope I didn't come up as way too aggressive on my points.

We're good. You didn't come off over aggressive to me at all. I just genuinely think there's not much left to say between us on this particular topic. It looks to me like we'd just start going in circles if we haven't started to do so already. I don't agree 3rd party material is necessary for 3e but I suspect that's down to taste and/or my frankly ridiculous degree of system mastery in that system. There's a -lot- of stuff for non-casters that gets overlooked for being buried in weird places in the first party stuff. This and other forums' absolute fixation on class to the exclusion of everything else doesn't help either.


Why does it matter what a real human can do? Should non-caster abilities be more restricted by the abilities of real humans than caster abilities? And if you believe they should, how much C/MD at say 20th level do you think these unequal restrictions are worth?

We don't disagree here. I explicitly said in the statement you quoted that the limitations of real humans were not appropriate. That doesn't stop them from being the bar set by some GMs so it needed to be said explicitly.


This doesn't tell us anything new, nor does it address any of the glaring weaknesses of high level martials. While the you're correct that the most egregious problem has never been about a lack of combat efficiency, with the possible exception of PoW initiators, high level martials do indeed typically also lack sufficient abilities to remain effective in higher level combat.

Only if you restrict your examination to class features and only class features. Which no one does. Appropriate ability scores always come up, and race with them, as does the choice of a two-handed weapon over alternatives. For some reason though, that's the point where the discussion of a character's details outside of class stop.

WBL is an assumed part of the system. As I discussed with moonguy, it's not a fault in the system if a GM decides to monkey around with that system and the assumptions around it. The target numbers the system sets (lower than forum standards, btw) can be met with plenty of wealth left over to expand your character's abilities with things like flight, miss-chance bypass, and DR penetration. The actual treasure tables give you still more than the WBL expectation for use on expendables and losses due to rejiggering your equipment through selling and upgrading. This whole, core system gets ignored outright in these discussions for, as far as I can tell, no legitimate reason.


But dealing a single brute type of enemy with virtually no special abilities or spells to protect against melee hp damage is one of the few things they're typically still good at even in higher levels, and especially a brute like this 3.5 titan which is barely more than an over-sized giant with a CR hilariously far above the actual threat it poses. Also many less versatile and dynamic non-initiators with some rather basic damage optimization can easily beat the crap out of these kinds of foes.

You haven't looked at the titan's SLAs. That fight was far from guaranteed. However, it was much closer than it would typically be assumed to be with the prevalent attitude toward non-casters in this community, even though the warblade was punching at what would have been an overwhelming challenge by the DMG guidelines.


Try changing the giant to say a CR 21 true dragon who uses its very considerable arsenal of both spells and sheer physical combat prowess as brilliantly as you can (with the comparatively pathetic mental capabilities of your species), and the weaknesses of your warblade should become painfully obvious.

An ancient blue dragon is not a substantially different fight from the titan. 6th level sorcerer spells aren't that hard to resist at level 18. It's health and defenses aren't dramatically higher and bypassing its DR is a given. If you bring it down to a level appropriate foe, an old blue, it gets to be just about a fair fight unless you assume, for some reason, that the warblade has nothing except level appropriate +X gear.


Yeah, 'cause Cronus was only an immortal divine being like all titans in Greek and Roman mythology. So what if he also happened to be the king of that second generation Greek deities and also the father of the king of the Olympians Zeus? I mean, he's still a titan, and then of course best represented as an over-CR:ed giant on steroids in 3.5, even if happens to be the God of Time, the Roman major deity Saturn, or whatever... :smallamused:

I should probably have colored mine too. Chronos would more likely be an elder titan from ELH. The point I was making, however, is that a high level warrior can stand firm against a creature of myth, noted for its strength. That's exactly the kind of thing you -would- expect from a high level warrior. That I could show it with a character swinging above his weight class CR-wise was a plus.


This is however largely true also IME.

Yup. However, the screwdriver's on the market. You just have to put down the cash to put it in your toolbox (or make an appropriate race choice for some of them.)


If you put what he's saying into the proper context, I believe you should see that what he's actually asking is why the Hulk is expected to play in the same party as Dr Strange and how the heck the Hulk's abilities are supposed to contribute to their party's success and impact the story roughly as much as Strange's abilities.

Moonguy can speak for himself on this, of course, but I don't think that's what he was asking at all. He was the one who brought up the hulk as an example of a high-level warrior in the first place. I think the question you've presented here is yours.

That said, I have an answer. The hulk is supposed to stand next to strange, to continue the metaphor, not simply in his purple shorts and bared chest, but draped in his own array of magical gewgaws and wielding a weapon in-line with excalibur if not necessarily the famous blade itself. Strange isn't standing there with only his own spellcasting knowledge, after all. He's got the time stone, his magic cloak, and a number of other bits and bobs from the sanctum sanctorum.


I agree. But there are still some annoying flaws with the system, and I very heartily recommend all 3.5 or PF groups to use DSP's alternative "Big Six" item rules from Steelforge (https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Steelforge_Items) instead (and maybe also decrease the WBL for caster class levels and increase it non-caster class levels).

The problem, as I currently see it, is that the flaws have been under a microscope for a decade and a half. That scrutiny has magnified them in the minds of the observer(s) to the point that they seem like great, gaping maws of dischord when, in reality, they're points of merely potential friction that can be overcome with just a dab of lubrication.

I'm standing here with my oil-can, wondering why everyone else is busting out spanners and cutting torches, and staring at the important parts of the engine they've already layed aside on the shop floor and forgotten.

[Peat]

a - No, absolutely nothing.
b - I don't think so. Or rather than undesirable, I would say unnecessary. Fighters don't have to cover all the bases, since there are other available options for some, but I wouldn't have an issue with it, if they did.

That's fair comment. Maybe at some tables where they've got a thing about single classing, but PrCs and the like do cover some of the space.


To me, in a certain sense, this is the Franchise Original Sin. Early in the design (and codified in subsequent editions), Arneson and Gygax decided that an epic level fighter was not going to look like Paul Bunyan, Samson or Achilles, and narrowing this archetype space is now the standard.

The really ironic thing is that they went in the opposite direction for wizards: broadening the archetype space from the get-go. If you look at a lot of pre-D&D mythological wizards, most of them were extremely specialized: Circe the Enchantress wasn’t throwing lightning bolts and Illusionists pretty much stuck to illusions.

If abjurers were great at protecting the party but relied on fighters to do any damage, or enchanters had no options for defence except rely on martials, I think wizards would remain extremely powerful but we’d get much fewer threads like this one.

This. So much this.

[upho]

I don't agree 3rd party material is necessary for 3e but I suspect that's down to taste and/or my frankly ridiculous degree of system mastery in that system.That's probably a correct assessment. Especially having a "ridiculous degree of system mastery" - not to mention frequently discussing the game with some of the other most ridiculously nerdy 3.5/PF super-nerds in existence - unfortunately also means design discussions like this have a tendency to put too much focus on fringe issues which the average player/group won't ever encounter, not to mention understand (although C/MD problems aren't exactly fringe issues).


There's a -lot- of stuff for non-casters that gets overlooked for being buried in weird places in the first party stuff. This and other forums' absolute fixation on class to the exclusion of everything else doesn't help either.I agree to at least some extent. However, I also think that especially in 3.5, there are pretty good reasons for the fixation on class. Primarily because that's generally where the mechanics with the most impact are found, and where the system itself has the greatest risk of causing serious balance issues. And secondarily because the least powerful classes allowing for the least variation between viable builds are also far more limited to one of the weakest and least varied category of options which multiple classes can access (non-caster feats), while they're also far more dependent on other categories of options which all classes have access to (skills and items).

For example, there are no feats, items or other options in 3.5 which may grant non-/low-caster melee focused PCs control/debuff mechanics with a net impact on the outcome of combat comparable to that of damage boost options. PF does have a few feat and item combos which may allow for potentially (very) effective combat roles/functions other than from the classic "single-target melee striker", but at least without PoW they're sadly far too rare, too dependent on system mastery, and also often too binary in their effects (often making it more difficult for the DM to create appropriate combat challenges).


We don't disagree here. I explicitly said in the statement you quoted that the limitations of real humans were not appropriate. That doesn't stop them from being the bar set by some GMs so it needed to be said explicitly.Aha. Thanks for the clarification. The context and first sentences in that paragraph made me suspect that you had primarily determined
When you start peppering in martial maneuvers you go well into appropriate territory for what a non-caster character should be able to do at high levels.by looking at how far beyond the abilities of a real human those of a non-caster should be to be considered "acceptable" in your opinion. Instead of primarily looking at what would contribute to a party's ability to overcome level-appropriate challenges roughly as much as a caster does.


Only if you restrict your examination to class features and only class features. Which no one does. Appropriate ability scores always come up, and race with them, as does the choice of a two-handed weapon over alternatives.My "examination" is actually restricted to only entire builds, including suitable ability scores, race, weapon choices, items and every other option and resource at least decently built actual PCs can be expected to have at the highest (non-epic) levels in real games following guidelines interpreted in a generous "martial-friendly" manner (including ability score point buy, feats, WBL, full "magic mart" availability of items, mentioned Steelforge "Easy Big Six" or similar item rules, at least all printed 1PP content available per default, etc). Admittedly I'm mostly thinking of PF games (with DSP's improved psionic, ToB and MoI near-equivalents) as I haven't run a 3.5 game in several years now, but I'm still aware of more than enough to be certain my general point is actually more valid in a "typical" 3.5 games (of the type described) than in PF ones.


For some reason though, that's the point where the discussion of a character's details outside of class stop.Hmm... I can't say this has been my experience when it comes to PF related discussions about non-/low-casters. But that may of course be because those other details may often enable quite a few mechanically distinctly different characters who share the same class, race, ability score and handedness of preferred weapon, as well as roughly the same superiority to other characters with those same options. Maybe one reason is that in 3.5, once the above choices have been made, there's often only one specific clearly superior matching package of options for most of those other details outside of class, and it's generally assumed in at least more general discussions that people know what those superior matching packages are and consequently there's little need to discuss their contents?


WBL is an assumed part of the system. As I discussed with moonguy, it's not a fault in the system if a GM decides to monkey around with that system and the assumptions around it.Of course. But as mentioned, I'm actually primarily assuming virtually unrestricted access to at least all non-custom items, plus Steelforge rules allowing Big Six and skill bonus stuff to be added to any mundane or magic item worn in any slot at no extra cost and independently upgraded. Things which definitely benefit non-casters more than casters.


The target numbers the system sets (lower than forum standards, btw) can be metThere are actually explicit target numbers for PCs in 3.5? I must've completely forgotten about them and I can't seem to find them by searching the net. Could you help me out with a link or book reference?

Anyhow, I don't see why it's particularly relevant whether WBL allows a non-/low-caster to easily meet the target numbers set by the system. I mean, since we're discussing if and how a non-/low-caster can contribute as much as a caster in high level combat, it seems to me the target numbers to be met are instead those set by the "typical" high level caster?


with plenty of wealth left over to expand your character's abilities with things like flight, miss-chance bypass, and DR penetration. The actual treasure tables give you still more than the WBL expectation for use on expendables and losses due to rejiggering your equipment through selling and upgrading. This whole, core system gets ignored outright in these discussions for, as far as I can tell, no legitimate reason.Because basic stuff like flight, some miss-chance bypass and DR penetration typically isn't nearly enough to make say a warblade or PF fighter able to overcome the frequent and diverse obstacles which bar them from using their primary combat strength in level-appropriate combats. At least not in a sufficiently reliable, action- and cost efficient manner, and especially not against actually challenging and smart opponents.

Perhaps more importantly, it seems you don't account for how and when the outcome of challenging high level combats are often decided, assuming an example fight that is tactically and strategically virtually identical to your warblade fighting an orc at 1st level would somehow indicate that high level non-casters are able contribute in combat roughly as much as casters.

IME, challenging high level encounters are fundamentally different, and are typically won by the most adaptable and best forewarned side, meaning much of the fight is won by gathering intelligence on the enemy's strengths, weaknesses and activities to be better prepared and able to choose the time and place of the actual combat, while keeping the enemy from being able to do the same. And once initiative has been rolled, the outcomes of these combats are almost always apparent well before the end of the first turn. Or to put it in other words, aside from a few notable exceptions, if your party is able to go melee nova on the actually challenging BBEG in a high level fight, you've most likely already won anyways, your melee nova simply a way to cut (often literally) to the chase and quickly confirm the foregone conclusion (more in the blue dragon example below).


You haven't looked at the titan's SLAs.I have. Though looking at them again, I have to admit the titan doesn't really deserve to be called an "over-CR:ed giant on steroids", as it's probably more comparable to say a balor on 'roids, having mostly blasting crap but also gate and perhaps a few other SLAs that could make a huge difference if it fights in a team allowing it to actually make use of those abilities.

Nevertheless, on it's own, the titan's pathetic initiative and complete lack of effective interrupting defenses likely makes it even more of a sitting duck than a lone balor, easily plucked by a single decently build PC of almost any class at this level. Heck, even a PF monk - arguably the weakest 1PP class in the game - could reliably have that duck securely bound in the first turn, without ally support or having to spend more than a couple of ki points (and doesn't even have to deal a single point of hp damage to take the titan out). And your example also clearly confirms this, the fight starting with even your unprepared warblade able to target and deal full damage to the titan with melee, illustrating how its high level SLAs and great full attack melee DPR is easily made practically worthless.


That is to say; in the first round of combat he does something like more than half its health in damage and made it save 3 times vs dying on the spot.And even a much less versatile 3.5 fighter with some ubercharger DNA and suitable gear would most likely flat-out murder that titan in the first turn in the same situation. Again, I don't really see how this type of simple early game fight tells us much about non-caster's viability in actually challenging high level fights.


That fight was far from guaranteed. However, it was much closer than it would typically be assumed to be with the prevalent attitude toward non-casters in this community, even though the warblade was punching at what would have been an overwhelming challenge by the DMG guidelines.First, while I think and hope this isn't surprising at all to many (most?) people in this community, also my impressions are that the "prevalent attitude toward non-casters" based on actual real issues has been inflated by the echo-chamber of people with less insight. Some of my own "controversial" claims about non-casters in PF are still frequently met with disbelief. (Although to be fair, those claims do indeed break also with the actually well-founded assumptions in 3.5, and the far greatest disbelief is most often expressed by 3.5 players who seem to believe they know what's possible in PF despite having barely looked at the game for several years, much less played it.)

Second, the CR system the guidelines rely on is IME frankly dangerously unreliable and misleading in many cases, especially in higher level games (more below).


An ancient blue dragon is not a substantially different fight from the titan.Say what? Are you serious?

I'm suspecting sarcasm is flying over my head because you forgot the blue font again... :smallredface:


6th level sorcerer spells aren't that hard to resist at level 18.Fine, I'll bite, just in case you're actually serious. How would your warblade for example:


prevent the dragon from using multiple castings of say contact other plane, scrying, legend lore, augury and/or divination to find out when and where it may expect to confront the warblade, as well as most stuff of importance about the warblade days before the fight?
resist say a twinned split ray of clumsiness (4 x 1d6+5 Dex damage (34 average), no save, likely cast from 50'+ away with Flyby Attack and a 230'+ fly speed), which an ancient blue could easily be able to cast at the very least 7 times per day?
keep the dragon from using celerity to deliver also a twinned split ray of enfeeblement (as per ray of clumsiness but Str damage) in the same first turn before the warblade has even acted?
ignore the dragon's antilife shell?
prevent his attack from being negated by the dragon's wings of cover (which the dragon can easily use once every round of the fight)?

These are just some very simple examples off the top my head which may make the dragon's sorcerer and cleric spells, supported by its many feats, vastly more dangerous than the titan's SLAs, especially in a 1 on 1 fight. And of course, the dragon is likely to have several additional spells on top of these which will make it even more difficult for your warblade to win this fight without a competent caster ally. Note also that neither the spells' levels or your warblade's save bonuses are likely to stop the dragon from gaining their full benefits in the fight. And while for example IHS might allow your warblade to remove a no-save-just-suck effect of one spell should the dragon use them, it's highly likely the standard action the maneuver requires will still make casting such spells a clear net win for the dragon.


It's health and defenses aren't dramatically higher and bypassing its DR is a given.Ok, I'll bite again: why would these things even matter? Your warblade's melee damage output is certainly sufficient when compared to the dragon's passive durability against melee hp damage. But that's unlikely to have any impact on this combat if the majority of the warblade's attacks are flat-out negated by magic, not to mention if he can't even get close enough to the dragon without first being debuffed into uselessness or killed.


If you bring it down to a level appropriate foe, an old blue, it gets to be just about a fair fight unless you assume, for some reason, that the warblade has nothing except level appropriate +X gear.You mean it would be a "fair fight" according to guidelines, right? I'd hope the above at least gives an indication of how vast the power span between monsters of the same CR may be, and how the actual threat a monster poses in a real game is highly dependent on the specific abilities of both the monster and the PCs. Or to put it in other words: don't ever trust CR to be a good indicator of how dangerous an opponent is in your specific game.


Moonguy can speak for himself on this, of course, but I don't think that's what he was asking at all. He was the one who brought up the hulk as an example of a high-level warrior in the first place. I think the question you've presented here is yours.Reading what Moonguy actually wrote again, I think you're at least mostly right that this wasn't actually what he asked. My bad, and thanks for answering anyways!


The hulk is supposed to stand next to strange, to continue the metaphor, not simply in his purple shorts and bared chest, but draped in his own array of magical gewgaws and wielding a weapon in-line with excalibur if not necessarily the famous blade itself. Strange isn't standing there with only his own spellcasting knowledge, after all. He's got the time stone, his magic cloak, and a number of other bits and bobs from the sanctum sanctorum.And suppose Hulk here faces an ancient blue dragon or a similar actually challenging higher level enemy, how is his gear supposed to save him from being near useless in comparison to Strange? (Replace Hulk and Strange with 3.5 non-caster and full caster of your choice.)


The problem, as I currently see it, is that the flaws have been under a microscope for a decade and a half. That scrutiny has magnified them in the minds of the observer(s) to the point that they seem like great, gaping maws of dischord when, in reality, they're points of merely potential friction that can be overcome with just a dab of lubrication.

I'm standing here with my oil-can, wondering why everyone else is busting out spanners and cutting torches, and staring at the important parts of the engine they've already layed aside on the shop floor and forgotten.Ha ha! Love the image this conjured up in my mind!

And yeah, I agree the item disparity thing often seems greatly overestimated, and IME even most magic item related issues people complain about - real or not - are very easily fixed with "a dab of lubrication" (or two).

[Lans]

What would it take for a Fighter/warblade to cut off a mountain top?

[AvatarVecna]

What would it take for a Fighter/warblade to cut off a mountain top?

Depending on how you interpret the rules. If we assume a "mountain" can be mechanically represented with an arbitrarily high number of 10ft by 10ft by 5ft unworked stone walls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#walls), and if we're willing to stretch "creature" far enough to include "inanimate objects" for the purposes of Cleave/Great Cleave (which to be fair if we don't interpret it that way, that means that you can't swing a greatsword through a line of candles and cut them all in half, you only get to cut one candle in half), then if a character with the Cleave/Great Cleave feats could reliably deal 900 damage after hardness to an object and had the speed necessary to move to within reach of the next "wall" in line, could absolutely cut a mountain in half. But that much damage, and that much speed, can be difficult to get...and while ranged weapons could make speed a non-issue, you can't abuse Great Cleave with bow, and getting enough attacks is now basically impossible. Alternatively, if you don't wanna deal with the speed issue, or the attack-quantity issue, then realistically...you need a way to attack an absolutely objects at once...which means AoEs. Big AoEs.

Alternatively, if you treat the mountain as a single object (rather than handling massive objects as multiple smaller objects, as the rules say), then so long as you can deal 15 damage per inch of thickness to the mountain, you can totally cut right through it!

[upho]

What would it take for a Fighter/warblade to cut off a mountain top?An exceptionally large stone saw, plenty of time and a tons of stupid stubbornness?

More seriously though, how would such an ability help a fighter or warblade become a more capable adventurer?

[AvatarVecna]

An exceptionally large stone saw, plenty of time and a tons of stupid stubbornness?

More seriously though, how would such an ability help a fighter or warblade become a more capable adventurer?

Giving non-casters more capabilities that let them target not individuals, but battlefields, makes them more relevant as the power level creeps up. As demonstrated, Great Cleave can already do that to an extent, but taking advantage of that can be...difficult to set up. Whirlwind Attack helps, but it's...kinda underwhelming, given the investment required, and even if you got it for free, it'd stop being a significant option pretty quickly, for the same reason many wizards ditch Burning Hands from their prepareds once they have Fireball.

EDIT: That one effect of such offensive tools would be the theoretical ability to cut a mountain in half with a single sword stroke would be icing on the cake. Sweet, delicious, anime icing.

[upho]

Giving non-casters more capabilities that let them target not individuals, but battlefields, makes them more relevant as the power level creeps up.Sure. I just don't see how cutting off mountain tops per se makes for a particularly good example of high level non-caster BFC ability. Flavorful maybe, but not effective.

Perhaps of greater interest is the fact that there are already options in PF which in certain combos may grant non-casters functionally multi-targeting exceptional control power on a pretty large scale (up to at least a 70' radius). These can be made extremely effective, far more so than damage styles, but are unfortunately also easily made OP or arguably even broken, notably since the game was obviously not designed to handle them. And while I guess those options could also easily be imported to 3.5, they'd still unfortunately require quite a bit of system mastery to actually make more effective than simply dealing a crap-ton of damage. So I absolutely agree that additional options would be great, preferably more easily accessible, less complicated and with less binary or OP effects than the existing PF ones.


As demonstrated, Great Cleave can already do that to an extent, but taking advantage of that can be...difficult to set up. Whirlwind Attack helps, but it's...kinda underwhelming, given the investment required, and even if you got it for free, it'd stop being a significant option pretty quickly, for the same reason many wizards ditch Burning Hands from their prepareds once they have Fireball.Yeah, and AFAICT, saying that these and similar uses of existing combat feats can be "difficult" to take advantage of, or that they would be "kinda underwhelming", honestly seems to give an overly optimistic view of their usefulness in practice. Not to mention that using Great Cleave or Whirlwind Attack in such manners would unfortunately be quite a stretch of the current RAW, a stretch I'd guess most players and GMs wouldn't even consider a possibility, much less allow in their game.


EDIT: That one effect of such offensive tools would be the theoretical ability to cut a mountain in half with a single sword stroke would be icing on the cake. Sweet, delicious, anime icing.:smalltongue: Though I'm personally not interested in having non-caster abilities more anime specifically, it does set the expectations suitably high...

[ThatMoonGuy]

The idea of cutting a mountaintop was meant to gice the idea that martials should have abilities that let the affect the battlefield and, thus, have some level of control over it. A less ridiculous version would be hitting the ground with a Warhammer to create a zone of difficult terrain.

Once you set a certain level of physical prowess for the class, you can think of out of combat abilities they could have and that would be useful in different situations. Again, extremely sharp senses and an uncanny level ability of reading people. There's one scene in Musashi, by Eiji Yoshikawa, where Musashi is handled a flower cut by a master samurai. A bunch of guys look at that and see nothing but Musashi, being a greater warrior than them, noticed the level of mastery of the sword that the person had just by seeing the precision of his slash. Now, imagine if martials could do things like that - maybe they could figure ability scores or class levels from observing the way people move or stand or something around those lines.

One thing that always sort of bothered me the way D20 handled martial classes is that they only focused on the combat exploits of the references they use but in every story about knights and heroes they have far more capabilities than that. Conan, the quintessential barbarian, was an extremely apt Thief and strategist who could sneak into a Wizard's tower and that later in life became a wise king. Sir Lancelot wasn't just good with the sword but also a rather good diplomat and politician.

If you look at the mythology and the social role played by knights in medieval society you see that they were not only strong but also intelligent, being among the few literate people in Europe and often having knowledge of history and religion. There is a whole discussion about the morals and values of chivalry from which you could extrapolate abilities the same way one extrapolates "knows how to bend reality" from the fact that sages and librarians in medieval times could do experiments and build calendars. If you do the same kind of extrapolation for martials then they could do such things as know if someone is lying by the besting of their hearts or judge one's character with but a glance. Those are valid exaggerations of real abilities in the same way that cutting mountaintops or being able to slay dragons are.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's probably a correct assessment. Especially having a "ridiculous degree of system mastery" - not to mention frequently discussing the game with some of the other most ridiculously nerdy 3.5/PF super-nerds in existence - unfortunately also means design discussions like this have a tendency to put too much focus on fringe issues which the average player/group won't ever encounter, not to mention understand (although C/MD problems aren't exactly fringe issues).

Yeah. It's frankly baffling how much of the stuff that's genuinely useful and not a magic item or spell got scattered accross dozens of books. For instance; did you know that there's a completely non-magical item that allows you to heal damage? Tome and blood has healing salve; an alchemical substance that restores 1d8 hp per dose for 50gp a pop. It's a long way from being the best healing bang for your buck but if the GM is saying no to buying magic gear, there it is. Also good if you want to give forsaker (masters of the wild) a real shot.


I agree to at least some extent. However, I also think that especially in 3.5, there are pretty good reasons for the fixation on class. Primarily because that's generally where the mechanics with the most impact are found, and where the system itself has the greatest risk of causing serious balance issues. And secondarily because the least powerful classes allowing for the least variation between viable builds are also far more limited to one of the weakest and least varied category of options which multiple classes can access (non-caster feats), while they're also far more dependent on other categories of options which all classes have access to (skills and items).

For example, there are no feats, items or other options in 3.5 which may grant non-/low-caster melee focused PCs control/debuff mechanics with a net impact on the outcome of combat comparable to that of damage boost options. PF does have a few feat and item combos which may allow for potentially (very) effective combat roles/functions other than from the classic "single-target melee striker", but at least without PoW they're sadly far too rare, too dependent on system mastery, and also often too binary in their effects (often making it more difficult for the DM to create appropriate combat challenges).

This is only partially true, at best. The one class feature held above all others is available for purchase, basically in its entirety. Obviously, no one character, except perhaps an artificer, is going to buy tons and tons of wands, staves, etc to essentially crib the spellcaster's role but that doesn't change the fact that the default assumption of the game is that you can buy -any- spell effect if you're willing to put down the cash. Actually getting it out of the item it's in is another matter but not an immensely difficult one to overcome.

That said, spells aren't the only thing. Magic items allow you to produce a whole host of unique effects that can't be produced otherwise as well as granting access to a handful of other class features from non-casters, martial maneuvers veritably leap to mind.

Now, as for the actual classes themselves, yeah. I won't deny that the classes, taken by themselves, aren't terribly well balanced. The casters' native access to spells and relative ease at accessing magic item creation go a -long- ways in the power curve department; given the outright necessity of wielding both spell effects and magic items. Non-caster features really need magical support to do what they're meant to do well while caster features, while few, are almost wholly centered around making the already powerful magic in the game that much more powerful.

Prepared casters, given time to prepare, are nigh-unstoppable. Even spontaneous casters that access the same lists as the most powerful casters can access such a broad range of powers that it can be difficult to challenge them without going out of your way to do so. The classes that have to access magic primarily through their gear can gain the necessary effects to stand at high level just fine but because they're so limited in that access and covering all your bases requires such skill that going around it is well within the ability of GMs with even mediocre system mastery, especially at high level and with caster foes.



Aha. Thanks for the clarification. The context and first sentences in that paragraph made me suspect that you had primarily determined by looking at how far beyond the abilities of a real human those of a non-caster should be to be considered "acceptable" in your opinion. Instead of primarily looking at what would contribute to a party's ability to overcome level-appropriate challenges roughly as much as a caster does.

They're about right either way, IMO. At least when you look at whole characters and not just class. As far as their martial abilities go, they may not be able to slice the tops from mountains but they're more than able to destroy armies and stand against creatures that amount to living WMDs.


My "examination" is actually restricted to only entire builds, including suitable ability scores, race, weapon choices, items and every other option and resource at least decently built actual PCs can be expected to have at the highest (non-epic) levels in real games following guidelines interpreted in a generous "martial-friendly" manner (including ability score point buy, feats, WBL, full "magic mart" availability of items, mentioned Steelforge "Easy Big Six" or similar item rules, at least all printed 1PP content available per default, etc). Admittedly I'm mostly thinking of PF games (with DSP's improved psionic, ToB and MoI near-equivalents) as I haven't run a 3.5 game in several years now, but I'm still aware of more than enough to be certain my general point is actually more valid in a "typical" 3.5 games (of the type described) than in PF ones.

I can't speak to PF changes to the game on the whole because I'm, frankly, ignorant of them.

That aside, properly geared and especially well built martials are perfectly capable of holding their own in high level play. They may not have the ability to bring down an apocalypse from the sky or feed an entire town for days on end by doing anything other than putting down cash (and any GM would be well within the bounds of reason to make the former very difficult to obtain) but most of the so-called narrative shifting effects like teleportation and flight are certainly accessible enough to -any- character and are mostly just quality of life enhancements anyway. Teleportation and long-term flight basically just amount to quick travel and even traveling between planes can be done through naturally existing boundaries.

The paradigm shifts between low and mid and then mid and high level play are almost entirely combat oriented. The leftovers after combat amount to negating non-combat survival problems (e.g. stranded in the desert or on an uninhabited island or a plane to which you aren't native) or dramatically shortened adventure time-tables (I've got two hours or two days to get accross the large island rather than the two weeks it takes to walk).


Hmm... I can't say this has been my experience when it comes to PF related discussions about non-/low-casters. But that may of course be because those other details may often enable quite a few mechanically distinctly different characters who share the same class, race, ability score and handedness of preferred weapon, as well as roughly the same superiority to other characters with those same options. Maybe one reason is that in 3.5, once the above choices have been made, there's often only one specific clearly superior matching package of options for most of those other details outside of class, and it's generally assumed in at least more general discussions that people know what those superior matching packages are and consequently there's little need to discuss their contents?

That is not at all my experience or understanding. I can easily understand where the utter derth of discussion over such details would lead to that belief, though. It was, ironically, much better before ToB came out. The advent of martial maneuvers and the necessity of sticking to the classes that grant them for higher level ones just shoved virtually all the other warrior options out the back door with a stern "don't come back." I don't know if that's any better in the PF community since PoW's release but the timeline couldn't be clearer for 3e.

There's certainly an optimal way to do damage as a non-caster (PA, leap attack, shocktrooper, pounce) but optimal damage in this case is also typically gross overkill and -very- binary; either you can charge at the target and you'll be able to hit it else you can't or you won't. Given that this is the case, I'd actually argue that it's -not- optimal. Being able to do -adequate- damage while covering all your other bases, or at least as many as you can, makes for a far better, more entertaining, and rewarding warrior character.

Skill types have always been about solving problems without all the flash of just casting spells or swinging swords at the problem. They're also -much- more reliable at actually putting the skill system to work than casters who just ape them by using spells to boost their own skill checks.




Of course. But as mentioned, I'm actually primarily assuming virtually unrestricted access to at least all non-custom items, plus Steelforge rules allowing Big Six and skill bonus stuff to be added to any mundane or magic item worn in any slot at no extra cost and independently upgraded. Things which definitely benefit non-casters more than casters.

In which case you're dramatically atypical of the people I've discussed this with. The argument typically goes something like "your class and its features are the -only- things you can guarantee so relying on anything outside of that is bad/wrong/unacceptable/weak/etc." Since a GM is just as free to screw with the classes and their features as he is with the availability of gear, spells, race choices, or whatever else have you, it's an argument that always struck me as hollow but that never stopped it from getting trotted out before.


There are actually explicit target numbers for PCs in 3.5? I must've completely forgotten about them and I can't seem to find them by searching the net. Could you help me out with a link or book reference?

They're not explicit but they aren't hard to derive either, especially since MIC came out. By comparing the guidelines for creating a monster, the NPC example tables, and the levels at which various items are considered appropriate by MIC guidelines, you can find where the numbers are expected to be to within a fairly tight margin of error.


Anyhow, I don't see why it's particularly relevant whether WBL allows a non-/low-caster to easily meet the target numbers set by the system. I mean, since we're discussing if and how a non-/low-caster can contribute as much as a caster in high level combat, it seems to me the target numbers to be met are instead those set by the "typical" high level caster?

If you're making your numbers with plenty to spare, what do you think the extra is supposed to be for if not expanding your capabilities to meet challenges to which your combat numbers don't apply?

The casters never have been setting the numbers for that part of the game. They just go around them. Casters target touch AC rather than regular, aim at weak saves, or drop effects that don't ask about a foes numers at all so they can render the foe either incapable or ineffectual at fighting back so that they can either defeat them with their much weaker combat numbers or let their more combat oriented allies/minions clean up with impunity. The only real exception to this is martial/ caster hybrids that use their magic to boost their numbers to near or beyond the target values. They tend to be much less capable in their role as casters than do others.


Because basic stuff like flight, some miss-chance bypass and DR penetration typically isn't nearly enough to make say a warblade or PF fighter able to overcome the frequent and diverse obstacles which bar them from using their primary combat strength in level-appropriate combats. At least not in a sufficiently reliable, action- and cost efficient manner, and especially not against actually challenging and smart opponents.

Unless you're talking about things like diplomacy or impending natural disasters, I'm honestly at a loss to which obtacles you're even talking about. As for getting them in sufficient quantity or for cheap, that's just sytem mastery again. Tactical level teleportation is dirt cheap, flight is free with the right race choice but can be had cheap as a mount or vehicle if you don't want to shell out for magic items, and DR can be bypassed altogether without having to resort to the golf-bag in at least three ways aside from just bulling through on sheer damage.


Perhaps more importantly, it seems you don't account for how and when the outcome of challenging high level combats are often decided, assuming an example fight that is tactically and strategically virtually identical to your warblade fighting an orc at 1st level would somehow indicate that high level non-casters are able contribute in combat roughly as much as casters.

The example I chose was to hilight that they -fight- every bit as well as they're supposed to. When you get past all the other concerns, a fight between a warrior and his foe is still a contest of attacks, AC, and HPs. Being able to "guide the story" is only as possible as a GM lets it be regardless of class. Can't teleport into an area of high energy or one warded against teleportation in particular or fly through a severe storm and that's just on the material plane.


IME, challenging high level encounters are fundamentally different, and are typically won by the most adaptable and best forewarned side, meaning much of the fight is won by gathering intelligence on the enemy's strengths, weaknesses and activities to be better prepared and able to choose the time and place of the actual combat, while keeping the enemy from being able to do the same. And once initiative has been rolled, the outcomes of these combats are almost always apparent well before the end of the first turn. Or to put it in other words, aside from a few notable exceptions, if your party is able to go melee nova on the actually challenging BBEG in a high level fight, you've most likely already won anyways, your melee nova simply a way to cut (often literally) to the chase and quickly confirm the foregone conclusion (more in the blue dragon example below).

That's not just high level it's also high optimization. Playing spy games to arrange lop-sided fights can be a fun way to play, I'll happilly grant you, but it's hardly a place restricted to casters alone. Divination is just like teleportation; a shortcut that's only as good as its limitations and the GM allow it to be.


I have. Though looking at them again, I have to admit the titan doesn't really deserve to be called an "over-CR:ed giant on steroids", as it's probably more comparable to say a balor on 'roids, having mostly blasting crap but also gate and perhaps a few other SLAs that could make a huge difference if it fights in a team allowing it to actually make use of those abilities.

Yup. Of course, if it gets a team, so does the PC. Unless you're talking about making use of its SNA IX ability.


Nevertheless, on it's own, the titan's pathetic initiative and complete lack of effective interrupting defenses likely makes it even more of a sitting duck than a lone balor, easily plucked by a single decently build PC of almost any class at this level. Heck, even a PF monk - arguably the weakest 1PP class in the game - could reliably have that duck securely bound in the first turn, without ally support or having to spend more than a couple of ki points (and doesn't even have to deal a single point of hp damage to take the titan out). And your example also clearly confirms this, the fight starting with even your unprepared warblade able to target and deal full damage to the titan with melee, illustrating how its high level SLAs and great full attack melee DPR is easily made practically worthless.

I didn't have a fully built warblade in mind. I was simply pointing out that one -is- a threat to an opponent that's not merely appropriate but that should be overwhelming if he can bring his class abilities to bare. Getting there is certainly doable, however.

If there's anything a -warrior- should be able to do, it's fight a level appropriate bruiser.


And even a much less versatile 3.5 fighter with some ubercharger DNA and suitable gear would most likely flat-out murder that titan in the first turn in the same situation. Again, I don't really see how this type of simple early game fight tells us much about non-caster's viability in actually challenging high level fights.

The ubercharger has just as much difficulty in actually reaching the target as any other warrior. More importantly, it's shut down hard in ways that a warblade's maneuvers or even just a different strategy as a fighter simply aren't; the elusive target tactical feat, the counter charge maneuver, literally any form of cover, a freakin' readied action to trip or disarm. Charging basically makes you no different from a simple cannon, albeit a particularly damaging one. Worse, if any of the things that can do so keep you from landing your attacks, your AC is flushed down the toilet for the retaliatory response.


First, while I think and hope this isn't surprising at all to many (most?) people in this community, also my impressions are that the "prevalent attitude toward non-casters" based on actual real issues has been inflated by the echo-chamber of people with less insight. Some of my own "controversial" claims about non-casters in PF are still frequently met with disbelief. (Although to be fair, those claims do indeed break also with the actually well-founded assumptions in 3.5, and the far greatest disbelief is most often expressed by 3.5 players who seem to believe they know what's possible in PF despite having barely looked at the game for several years, much less played it.)

It's been my experience that the common attitude is that high-level warriors are all but completely worthless for high level play, especially the ones in the lower tiers. It's commonly touted, and quite loudly, that they can't even do the job they're expected to do long before the highest levels of play.


Second, the CR system the guidelines rely on is IME frankly dangerously unreliable and misleading in many cases, especially in higher level games (more below).

It's not that they're necessarily unreliable, just incomplete. The more moving parts there are in an encounter, the more likely it is they don't line up for one reason or another. If you have the silver bullet for a particular obstacle, of course they look low and if they have your silver-bullet then they're far more dangerous than CR would suggest. The trick is to have as few silver-bullets as you can from the PC side and to keep the PCs guessing so they pick the aluminum bullet instead of the silver one or just don't give them the chance to load it if they do.




Say what? Are you serious?

I'm suspecting sarcasm is flying over my head because you forgot the blue font again... :smallredface:

No sarcasm. It's a bruiser with some specials that could prove problematic but is by no means an unwinnable fight. A dangerous one, sure, but not an impossible one.


Fine, I'll bite, just in case you're actually serious. How would your warblade for example:

If you really want to do this, I'll play ball but there are some issues to address first.


prevent the dragon from using multiple castings of say contact other plane, scrying, legend lore, augury and/or divination to find out when and where it may expect to confront the warblade, as well as most stuff of importance about the warblade days before the fight?

This is the big one. This simply doesn't work. Nevermind the rules for a second and consider the logic of it. The more finely you try to determine your own future and base your behavior on those predicitons, the more your behavior will be disassociated from the predictions themselves. Nevermind that casting contact other plane to contact a greater deity, the only beings that can reliably read the future, has even odds of wiping the dragon's spellcasting ability and intellect for a month at a time.

Then there's simply the matter of fair play; it's outright impossible for a GM to actually make this happen for a player (without it turning into a transcontinental railroad, anyway) so doing it for his NPCs may as well be cheating even if it did work logically.



resist say a twinned split ray of clumsiness (4 x 1d6+5 Dex damage (34 average), no save, likely cast from 50'+ away with Flyby Attack and a 230'+ fly speed), which an ancient blue could easily be able to cast at the very least 7 times per day?

Couple issues with this one.

First, both that and the ray of clumsiness you mention later apply penalties rather than doing ability damage. Since it's the same source applying the penalty, they don't stack. Only the worst applies and they both have a "minimum 1" clause. The worst they could do is apply a 12 point penalty.

Second, the dragon doesn't have any slots high enough to cast that. Both metas are +4 adjustments so he'll have to pick one or the other and get the other out of a rod.

Third, unless he has arcane preparation, he can't combine those at all in the same round. Using a metamagic on a spontaneous spell increases its casting time to a full round action or by a full round action if it's already that long or longer. Using a metamagic rod requires the same extra action to apply its benefit as it normally would if the caster was applying that metamagic from his own ability. You're looking at at least a full round if not two well within charging distance.

Finally, a +4 metamagic rod (neither greater nor lesser) is worth 75,500. The dragon's whole horde should be worth a little over a 240k so that's between 1/3 and 1/4 of its treasure in just one item. It's not on a random treasure table at all but if it was, taking a quicken rod as an example suggets it should only have a few percentage points chance of occuring. In any case, having more than one would definitely be inappropriate so it's just 3 times in a day, not 7. It also smells an awful lot like customizing to make it an extraordinarily difficult foe rather than a typical one.


keep the dragon from using celerity to deliver also a twinned split ray of enfeeblement (as per ray of clumsiness but Str damage) in the same first turn before the warblade has even acted?

Action economy and sorcerer metamagic demand that be a greater celerity, which is completely beyond the dragon's casting ability. If it doesn't take the warblade down, and it won't, then he also gives me a free turn to whoop on him for the attempt.


ignore the dragon's antilife shell?

You mean other than being large and having a reach weapon to get past the 10ft radius emanation?


prevent his attack from being negated by the dragon's wings of cover (which the dragon can easily use once every round of the fight)?

That one works. For -one- attack each round. Also, prevents him from using that celerity mentioned above since an immediate action on one round eats the swift from the next turn. Also doesn't work on the first turn unless he wins initiative which is unlikely, given his zero dex modifier. Can't take an immediate action while flat-footed.


These are just some very simple examples off the top my head which may make the dragon's sorcerer and cleric spells, supported by its many feats, vastly more dangerous than the titan's SLAs, especially in a 1 on 1 fight. And of course, the dragon is likely to have several additional spells on top of these which will make it even more difficult for your warblade to win this fight without a competent caster ally. Note also that neither the spells' levels or your warblade's save bonuses are likely to stop the dragon from gaining their full benefits in the fight. And while for example IHS might allow your warblade to remove a no-save-just-suck effect of one spell should the dragon use them, it's highly likely the standard action the maneuver requires will still make casting such spells a clear net win for the dragon.

12 feats isn't that many. The titan's SLAs were much harder to resist too. As for the fight dragging on, that works in the warblade's favor, not the dragon's. Spells are per day, maneuvers just keep going.

If you really want to do this, I can put together a warblade 18 and you can put together an ancient blue and we can see what happens. Even putting in a good showing without winning, making the dragon burn through substantial daily resources, would prove my point.


Ok, I'll bite again: why would these things even matter? Your warblade's melee damage output is certainly sufficient when compared to the dragon's passive durability against melee hp damage. But that's unlikely to have any impact on this combat if the majority of the warblade's attacks are flat-out negated by magic, not to mention if he can't even get close enough to the dragon without first being debuffed into uselessness or killed.

Those are great, horkin' big "ifs."


You mean it would be a "fair fight" according to guidelines, right? I'd hope the above at least gives an indication of how vast the power span between monsters of the same CR may be, and how the actual threat a monster poses in a real game is highly dependent on the specific abilities of both the monster and the PCs. Or to put it in other words: don't ever trust CR to be a good indicator of how dangerous an opponent is in your specific game.

Not just by the guidelines. The numbers line up even better than they do for the ancient and the spells are even fewer, lower level, and easier still to resist.

The guidelines are better than they get credit for (save MM2 and a handful of creatures elsewhere from 3.0). The expectations of the community have gone out of whack is the problem. Seriously, look at the "top of your head" ideas and ask yourself if a non-player beast that's not only heavily geared (1/4 of its treasure in 1 item?) but also double-stacking metamagics on sorcerer casting through feat and gear selection is really anything approaching typical. An optimized 13th level PC would have trouble dragging that much out of his magic.


Reading what Moonguy actually wrote again, I think you're at least mostly right that this wasn't actually what he asked. My bad, and thanks for answering anyways!

No problem. :smallsmile:


And suppose Hulk here faces an ancient blue dragon or a similar actually challenging higher level enemy, how is his gear supposed to save him from being near useless in comparison to Strange? (Replace Hulk and Strange with 3.5 non-caster and full caster of your choice.)

There's only one dragon and two PCs? By making him enough of a threat and hard enough to put down that the dragon can't simply ignore him any more than he can Strange. Simply being a noteworthy foe that can either force an outnumbered enemy to split his attention or to draw aggro when your team is outnumbered is helpful enough even if you -do- consider Strange and the dragon to be the primary participants. Even beyond that, dragons are -hard- to silver-bullet outside of shivering touch. Strange is -far- more likely to merely weaken the beast enough to guarantee Hulk's ability to smash than he is to outright win the fight on his own.

A big, dumb hulk-esque warrior isn't really super appropriate for a spy games deal like you were talking about a few paragraphs back though. In a campaign like that, I'd build an altogether different non-caster; something with access to the social skills.

Personally, I almost never single-class a character pretty much regardless of which archetype I"m playing toward but that always muddies these discussions horribly. I do a straight fighter from time to time but even that's rare for me.


Ha ha! Love the image this conjured up in my mind!

And yeah, I agree the item disparity thing often seems greatly overestimated, and IME even most magic item related issues people complain about - real or not - are very easily fixed with "a dab of lubrication" (or two).

:biggrin:

[Morty]

So "play a super hero or get knotted" then?

If I showed up to a game of Exalted and demanded to play a mortal on equal footing with Solars, people would tell me to knock it off. Likewise if I wanted to play an Imperial Guardsman in Dark Heresy and fistcuff Chaos Space Marines. I'm not sure why "I want to play high level D&D but be a mundane guy with a sword" is any more reasonable.

[upho]

The idea of cutting a mountaintop was meant to gice the idea that martials should have abilities that let the affect the battlefield and, thus, have some level of control over it. A less ridiculous version would be hitting the ground with a Warhammer to create a zone of difficult terrain.I was admittedly being a bit facetious, as I can of course clearly see the point from at least a more symbolic PoV.


Lots of true stuff about classic non-caster archetypes.I fully agree. And as I wrote in my first post in this thread, there are indeed a lot of great suitably fantastic out of combat and utility stuff to be found outside of D&D.

[upho]

Yeah. It's frankly baffling how much of the stuff that's genuinely useful and not a magic item or spell got scattered accross dozens of books.Yeah, and unfortunately the sheer amount of splat dumpster-diving required to make higher level non-casters more viable is a part of the C/MD issue in 3.5, never mind the amount of system mastery required to make good use of much of the content.


For instance; did you know that there's a completely non-magical item that allows you to heal damage? Tome and blood has healing salve; an alchemical substance that restores 1d8 hp per dose for 50gp a pop. It's a long way from being the best healing bang for your buck but if the GM is saying no to buying magic gear, there it is. Also good if you want to give forsaker (masters of the wild) a real shot.Nice. I especially like that it's alchemical, which probably makes the non-magic yet "unrealistic" effect more acceptable in the eyes of people who find such simulationist aspects important (a fact which may have played a part in the PF alchemist's success). But regardless, I'm afraid I'm most likely no longer a good representative of your average 3.5 forum regular when it comes to my awareness of more obscure 3.5 options.


This is only partially true, at best. The one class feature held above all others is available for purchase, basically in its entirety.Not in practice, as you touch upon. IME, decently built and played higher level non-casters are of course going to make as good use of spell triggers and similar items as they can reasonably afford, but in most games neither WBL or skill points are sufficient to make the non-casters' contributions anywhere comparable to those of the equally well built and played casters in the same party. And perhaps equally important, none of this allows a 3.5 non-caster to leave the over-crowded "single-target striker" niche and remain as viable in combat.


That said, spells aren't the only thing. Magic items allow you to produce a whole host of unique effects that can't be produced otherwise as well as granting access to a handful of other class features from non-casters, martial maneuvers veritably leap to mind.Sure, and I can see how this "item compensation" concept might very well remove most C/MD balance issues. That is of course provided the concept also includes say at least double non-caster WBL, full easy in-game access to every conceivable item - including custom ones - and free max ranks in UMD.


Now, as for the actual classes themselves, yeah. I won't deny that the classes, taken by themselves, aren't terribly well balanced. The casters' native access to spells and relative ease at accessing magic item creation go a -long- ways in the power curve department; given the outright necessity of wielding both spell effects and magic items. Non-caster features really need magical support to do what they're meant to do well while caster features, while few, are almost wholly centered around making the already powerful magic in the game that much more powerful.

Prepared casters, given time to prepare, are nigh-unstoppable. Even spontaneous casters that access the same lists as the most powerful casters can access such a broad range of powers that it can be difficult to challenge them without going out of your way to do so. The classes that have to access magic primarily through their gear can gain the necessary effects to stand at high level just fine but because they're so limited in that access and covering all your bases requires such skill that going around it is well within the ability of GMs with even mediocre system mastery, especially at high level and with caster foes.This. It appears that while our experiences may differ when it comes to the details and severity of the issue, we very much agree about its existence and root causes.


They're about right either way, IMO. At least when you look at whole characters and not just class. As far as their martial abilities go, they may not be able to slice the tops from mountains but they're more than able to destroy armies and stand against creatures that amount to living WMDs.Here's Nelly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21556361&postcount=89), a PF example build (combo details and a sample first round of combat here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21556450&postcount=91)) I made a few years ago. The sample combat round hopefully illustrates the kind of combat prowess I believe a high level non-caster would have to possess to actually be on somewhat equal footing with equally optimized casters in combat.

Importantly, while neither as high combat values, devastating hit effects or as many powerful action economy boosts as Nelly has would be needed or suitable outside of the rare games with PC power expectations far higher than according to any guidelines (even those for PF's Mythic), much of her combat versatility, targeting capability and active defenses are indeed required for equal footing with casters also in more typical games with an expected power level close to guidelines. Unfortunately, neither meeting those requirements or taking on a combat role/function similar to Nelly's "mass-control/debuff tank" is even remotely possible for a non-/low-caster in 3.5, while it also severely limits the number of viable character concepts, and requires far more optimization time and skill in a PF game limited to 1PP content than a very large majority of players have.


That aside, properly geared and especially well built martials are perfectly capable of holding their own in high level play.See above.


They may not have the ability to bring down an apocalypse from the sky or feed an entire town for days on end by doing anything other than putting down cash (and any GM would be well within the bounds of reason to make the former very difficult to obtain) but most of the so-called narrative shifting effects like teleportation and flight are certainly accessible enough to -any- character and are mostly just quality of life enhancements anyway. Teleportation and long-term flight basically just amount to quick travel and even traveling between planes can be done through naturally existing boundaries.Agreed. At least with a reasonable GM these things shouldn't present a major obstacle to non-casters.


The paradigm shifts between low and mid and then mid and high level play are almost entirely combat oriented.Yes, but the nature of the combats is typically very different, and the tools needed for victory typically far more numerous, diverse and complex than during earlier levels. And IME these combat paradigm shifts tend to affect - and be affected by - also what would be considered primarily non-combat activities, abilities and challenges to a much greater extent than during previous levels.


That is not at all my experience or understanding.And not actually mine either, I have to say.


I can easily understand where the utter derth of discussion over such details would lead to that belief, though. It was, ironically, much better before ToB came out. The advent of martial maneuvers and the necessity of sticking to the classes that grant them for higher level ones just shoved virtually all the other warrior options out the back door with a stern "don't come back."I think you're right about the timing, at least according to what I'm able to remember from the old Gleemax forum discussions. But I find it difficult to find plausible reasons why ToB would actually be the main cause for this rapid decline of discussions on details outside of class. I mean, it's not like the viability of ToB builds are somehow largely independent of those details.


I don't know if that's any better in the PF community since PoW's release but the timeline couldn't be clearer for 3e.It's unfortunately not really comparable, primarily because PoW is 3PP content, even though I'd guess it - and other DSP series and Spheres of Power/Might - is far more highly regarded and commonly allowed than any one specific 3PP subsystem or book series has ever been in 3.5. That said, PoW has definitely received a lot of attention on this particular forum and has had a very noticeable impact also on the more general discussions here. And it certainly hasn't made discussions about those details outside of class any less prevalent AFICT, nor has it made those who play with PoW regard those details as any less important when discussing or giving advice on character builds. Although another reason why PoW haven't had such an effect may of course be that it includes a greater number of strong class-independent feats and options for 1PP non-casters than ToB does.


There's certainly an optimal way to do damage as a non-caster (PA, leap attack, shocktrooper, pounce) but optimal damage in this case is also typically gross overkill and -very- binary; either you can charge at the target and you'll be able to hit it else you can't or you won't. Given that this is the case, I'd actually argue that it's -not- optimal. Being able to do -adequate- damage while covering all your other bases, or at least as many as you can, makes for a far better, more entertaining, and rewarding warrior character.Absolutely. The full ubercharger package is poor practical optimization, no doubt. The real offensive challenge for non-caster damage builds is IME instead their lack of means to spread their love.


Skill types have always been about solving problems without all the flash of just casting spells or swinging swords at the problem. They're also -much- more reliable at actually putting the skill system to work than casters who just ape them by using spells to boost their own skill checks.Perhaps, but the problem is that skills are still significantly less powerful than spells for overcoming both combat and non-combat challenges.


In which case you're dramatically atypical of the people I've discussed this with. The argument typically goes something like "your class and its features are the -only- things you can guarantee so relying on anything outside of that is bad/wrong/unacceptable/weak/etc." Since a GM is just as free to screw with the classes and their features as he is with the availability of gear, spells, race choices, or whatever else have you, it's an argument that always struck me as hollow but that never stopped it from getting trotted out before.If this is actually the case, it's beyond stupid. Who expects to come up with any truths about the game when only including half of it? I must have given advice on hundreds of PF builds by now, and I've so far never heard of a game without feats or magic items (or equivalent). The same goes for 4e, btw. And the "default" for PF seems to be basically "everything on Archives of Nethys is fine", meaning all 1PP options are allowed. Though it does appear that 3.5 stands out as having the far least reliable and most restrictive "standard", where any option outside of core may very well not be allowed in several games, often solely on the basis of whether the GM owns the publication it was found in.


They're not explicit but they aren't hard to derive either, especially since MIC came out. By comparing the guidelines for creating a monster, the NPC example tables, and the levels at which various items are considered appropriate by MIC guidelines, you can find where the numbers are expected to be to within a fairly tight margin of error.Such as a permanent Spot bonus of 79+? Really?


The casters never have been setting the numbers for that part of the game. They just go around them.Which is precisely the power the non-casters need to be able to match.


The example I chose was to hilight that they -fight- every bit as well as they're supposed to.Do they? In comparison to the polymorphed casters and their minions?

And even if they do, the -fighting- you describe is not in any way a rare combat strength at this level, but a rather minor element of combat which practically everyone and their mother can cover well enough if needed, casters included.


That's not just high level it's also high optimization.Hardly high-op IMO, but I can agree that it's also not exactly low-op.


Yup. Of course, if it gets a team, so does the PC. Unless you're talking about making use of its SNA IX ability.I simply meant that the titan is probably not even half as strong as the CR implies when alone and without reliable means to prepare (a large part of which would be using its summoning SLAs) or at least win initiative.


If there's anything a -warrior- should be able to do, it's fight a level appropriate bruiser.Sure, but the problem is those aren't the real threats, and the warrior isn't needed to deal with them. That kind of combat prowess just isn't enough on its own to justify the warrior's existence as a PC in the party.


The ubercharger has just as much difficulty in actually reaching the target as any other warrior.My point was that despite the many flaws and weaknesses of a lowly ubercharger type of build with very little combat versatility to speak of, it would still likely easily win this fight.


It's been my experience that the common attitude is that high-level warriors are all but completely worthless for high level play, especially the ones in the lower tiers. It's commonly touted, and quite loudly, that they can't even do the job they're expected to do long before the highest levels of play.While I don't agree with what you say is commonly touted, relative casters high-level lower tier warriors are very weak adventurers. Even in combat, even though they're much stronger in than outside of combat.


No sarcasm. It's a bruiser with some specials that could prove problematic but is by no means an unwinnable fight. A dangerous one, sure, but not an impossible one.Just because an ancient blue dragon can be reduced to bruiser doesn't mean it is one by default, and it's neither described as one or implied to be one when looking at its abilities. Skirmisher/caster maybe.


This is the big one. This simply doesn't work.The specifics don't really matter as there are so many options available to the dragon to achieve the same result. The points I was trying to get across are that the dragon's spells can easily make it highly likely the dragon will at least:

have much more useful info on your warblade's specific combat strengths and weaknesses than vice versa
be aware of your warlord's presence in the vicinity before he's aware of the dragon
be fully prepared and buffed to the teeth when combat begins
be able to initiate combat without your warlord having any short duration buffs up


Then there's simply the matter of fair play; it's outright impossible for a GM to actually make this happen for a player (without it turning into a transcontinental railroad, anyway) so doing it for his NPCs may as well be cheating even if it did work logically.Of course, anything having to do with looking into the future has a high risk of being problematic and often demands plenty of GM fiat. But the actually relevant "fair play" here is that the dragon should of course present a truly difficult challenge, as appropriate for its CR, also to an 18th level caster PC just as optimized as your warblade. Which among other things means the dragon will most likely at the very least know of every spell related trick the caster knows of that it can perform, and that it will use its magic abilities to the very maximum of its capability. The fact that a non-caster such as the warblade can't handle that is, well, precisely my point.

An effect of this is btw that if this was actually a real game with a reasonably competent GM, your warblade would most likely have a better chance if he was less optimized, since the abilities and actual power of the dragon are largely in the hands of the GM even when keeping strictly to what the MM entry and the DMG guidelines say.


First, both that and the ray of clumsiness you mention later apply penalties rather than doing ability damage.Ah, yes. My 3.5-fu isn't what it used to be. Sorry. Please change that to say maximized ray of stupidity (8 x 5(?) Int damage, average 40) or some similar stacking no-save-just-suck ray.


Second, the dragon doesn't have any slots high enough to cast that. Both metas are +4 adjustments so he'll have to pick one or the other and get the other out of a rod.Uh... Is my 3.5 op-fu suddenly better than yours? Or has Arcane Thesis, Improved Metamagic and Practical Metamagic been changed since 2008?

I haven't even considered rods.


Third, unless he has arcane preparation, he can't combine those at all in the same round. Using a metamagic on a spontaneous spell increases its casting time to a full round action or by a full round action if it's already that long or longer. Using a metamagic rod requires the same extra action to apply its benefit as it normally would if the caster was applying that metamagic from his own ability. You're looking at at least a full round if not two well within charging distance.Oh come on now; Rapid Metamagic of course! Again, no rods, and should still be doable precisely as I described it, in the very first turn.


Finally, a +4 metamagic rod (neither greater nor lesser) is worth 75,500.Stop right there! Rapid Metamagic remember? I'm pretty sure the only item the dragon might need to do what I described in its very first turn is that cheap thing in MIC which prevents dazed 1/day (Third Eye something?). Costs less than 5k IIRC.


Action economy and sorcerer metamagic demand that be a greater celerity, which is completely beyond the dragon's casting ability. If it doesn't take the warblade down, and it won't, then he also gives me a free turn to whoop on him for the attempt.Except Rapid Metamagic. Has that become some kind of obscure niche feat nobody knows about these days? And shouldn't 40 Int damage be more than enough to make a warblade about as capable as a dead tulip?

(And speaking of action economy, the dragon could also have say a contingency and use its breath as a free action during its first turn, on top casting those eight rays.)


You mean other than being large and having a reach weapon to get past the 10ft radius emanation? It's only 10'? I must remember some pimped up version. Well scrap that then, doesn't matter anyways.


That one works. For -one- attack each round.Yes, so no single-attack strikes for the warblade.


Also, prevents him from using that celerity mentioned above since an immediate action on one round eats the swift from the next turn.Nah, rather prevents the dragon from using WoC on the warblade's first turn. Which it's very unlikely to be in need of btw.


Also doesn't work on the first turn unless he wins initiative which is unlikely, given his zero dex modifier. Can't take an immediate action while flat-footed.Is it common in your games that sorcerers have a worse initiative than warblades by 13th level? Or is it more common that they have tons of stuff beyond and above their Dex bonus to ensure they win initiative?

Regardless, assume the dragon uses every plausible resource in order to ensure it goes first, especially if it can't make sure to get a surprise round.


If you really want to do this, I can put together a warblade 18 and you can put together an ancient blue and we can see what happens. Even putting in a good showing without winning, making the dragon burn through substantial daily resources, would prove my point.Shouldn't we let someone who has actually played the game at least a few times during the last 11 years put together the dragon? I think you'll find plenty of Playgrounders who'd be up to the challenge.


Those are great, horkin' big "ifs."IME they'd be very near certain in this case. And I say that after having seen very highly optimized non-casters as well as casters and caster monsters in actual play. A sole warblade 18 stands virtually no chance of actually winning a fight against an optimized ancient blue in a real game.


Not just by the guidelines. The numbers line up even better than they do for the ancient and the spells are even fewer, lower level, and easier still to resist.So for example the multiple rays of stupidity, celerity, wings of cover etc wouldn't be possible?


The guidelines are better than they get credit for (save MM2 and a handful of creatures elsewhere from 3.0). The expectations of the community have gone out of whack is the problem. Seriously, look at the "top of your head" ideas and ask yourself if a non-player beast that's not only heavily geared (1/4 of its treasure in 1 item?) but also double-stacking metamagics on sorcerer casting through feat and gear selection is really anything approaching typical. An optimized 13th level PC would have trouble dragging that much out of his magic.See above regarding "fair play".


There's only one dragon and two PCs?It's the type of threat that matters. It would of course be two dragons or one with some minions against two PCs.


By making him enough of a threat and hard enough to put down that the dragon can't simply ignore him any more than he can Strange. Note that I wasn't asking about the actual Hulk and Strange.


A big, dumb hulk-esque warrior isn't really super appropriate for a spy games deal like you were talking about a few paragraphs back though.Nor is such a character suitable for fighting dragons or other enemies actually challenging for a higher level caster.


Personally, I almost never single-class a character pretty much regardless of which archetype I"m playing toward but that always muddies these discussions horribly. I do a straight fighter from time to time but even that's rare for me.It's pretty much the same for me, and a large majority of the more important NPCs I create.


If I showed up to a game of Exalted and demanded to play a mortal on equal footing with Solars, people would tell me to knock it off. Likewise if I wanted to play an Imperial Guardsman in Dark Heresy and fistcuff Chaos Space Marines. I'm not sure why "I want to play high level D&D but be a mundane guy with a sword" is any more reasonable.This. So much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, and unfortunately the sheer amount of splat dumpster-diving required to make higher level non-casters more viable is a part of the C/MD issue in 3.5, never mind the amount of system mastery required to make good use of much of the content.

It's not that bad. MIC went a long ways toward consolidating the lion's share of it. There's still some diving to be done here and there but it's no worse than optimizing a caster, all in all. If you assume roughly equal degrees of system mastery, the casters and non-casters aren't nearly so far apart. At least unless you're stuck in core. They -really- screwed up in core.



Not in practice, as you touch upon. IME, decently built and played higher level non-casters are of course going to make as good use of spell triggers and similar items as they can reasonably afford, but in most games neither WBL or skill points are sufficient to make the non-casters' contributions anywhere comparable to those of the equally well built and played casters in the same party. And perhaps equally important, none of this allows a 3.5 non-caster to leave the over-crowded "single-target striker" niche and remain as viable in combat.

Skill points are less important than you'd think. In fact, unless you're a class with UMD or are willing to go -way- out of your way to get it on your skill list, skill points largely don't figure into it. If you're willing to take a single level in -any- caster class (but especially cleric) then you instantly gain access to a whole host of spell trigger items.

Even outside of that, potions can go up to 9th level (MoF's master alchemist), skull talismans (frostburn) can too, and both spell vials (MoE's Alchemist Savant) and talismans (oriental adventure) can make offensive magic available while the latter isn't restricted from personal spells or AoEs. Crafted contingent spells are always potent too. There's even an argument to be made that combining the master alchemist with the alchemist savant (both classes are setting agnostic) can get you spell vials of higher level spells, although it could be considered contentious. Runes are basically double-cost scrolls that anyone can activate with a touch.

Obviously -overusing- expendables can be just as bad as under-utilizing them but that's just a matter of player skill. If you know you're going to face a dragon, why wouldn't you get a talisman of armor enhancement to give your armor the bane blind quality for dragons so you can make your approach completely undetected? Seriously, you're -expected- to spend between 10 and 20 percent of your treasure for exactly this sort of thing.


Sure, and I can see how this "item compensation" concept might very well remove most C/MD balance issues. That is of course provided the concept also includes say at least double non-caster WBL, full easy in-game access to every conceivable item - including custom ones - and free max ranks in UMD.

If anything, going that far would be overkill. Casters aren't the only ones that can prepare for a specific fight and see my comments on the previous paragraph.


This. It appears that while our experiences may differ when it comes to the details and severity of the issue, we very much agree about its existence and root causes.

As I've said, it's not even a problem. Merely a potential one that stems from wildly differing optimization levels within the same group.


Here's Nelly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21556361&postcount=89), a PF example build (combo details and a sample first round of combat here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21556450&postcount=91)) I made a few years ago. The sample combat round hopefully illustrates the kind of combat prowess I believe a high level non-caster would have to possess to actually be on somewhat equal footing with equally optimized casters in combat.

Importantly, while neither as high combat values, devastating hit effects or as many powerful action economy boosts as Nelly has would be needed or suitable outside of the rare games with PC power expectations far higher than according to any guidelines (even those for PF's Mythic), much of her combat versatility, targeting capability and active defenses are indeed required for equal footing with casters also in more typical games with an expected power level close to guidelines. Unfortunately, neither meeting those requirements or taking on a combat role/function similar to Nelly's "mass-control/debuff tank" is even remotely possible for a non-/low-caster in 3.5, while it also severely limits the number of viable character concepts, and requires far more optimization time and skill in a PF game limited to 1PP content than a very large majority of players have.

I'm not at all familiar with any of those maneuvers but it looks to me like you spent quite a -lot- of resources getting your combat numbers much higher than they needed to be. How many PF creatures have AC in the 50s at CR 20? Hell, at CR24? How many have attack bonuses in that range?

I wouldn't want to be the titan that has to lock horns with that in actual melee but it looks to me like you could bring that down to the titan having a very slim chance (instead of the virtually none it currently has) in a straight fight and open up a whole host of options with the difference for dealing with trickier foes.



Agreed. At least with a reasonable GM these things shouldn't present a major obstacle to non-casters.

Or if they do, the caster side of the equation should get equal treatment.


Yes, but the nature of the combats is typically very different, and the tools needed for victory typically far more numerous, diverse and complex than during earlier levels. And IME these combat paradigm shifts tend to affect - and be affected by - also what would be considered primarily non-combat activities, abilities and challenges to a much greater extent than during previous levels.

Not really. Detection, bypssing obstacles and defenses to reach and then attack, dealing adequate harm with whatever offense you use; the flavors change, the principles don't.


I think you're right about the timing, at least according to what I'm able to remember from the old Gleemax forum discussions. But I find it difficult to find plausible reasons why ToB would actually be the main cause for this rapid decline of discussions on details outside of class. I mean, it's not like the viability of ToB builds are somehow largely independent of those details.

They're not at all. Yet ToB was treated as a panacea for the problems of martial characters for a while. The "obvious superiority" of ToB classes, with perhaps a few dips, pushed out pretty much all of the class building elements on the martial side of things. Since they were similar enough to casters and their powers largely independent of what they're attached to, they got the same treatment: focus on the maneuvers, pick a race with +X to your primary or secondary ability or just go human for the bonus feat, pick a good weapon, end of discussion. Actual discussion of gear to cover your ass has been relegated to the "list of necessary items" and race discussion just plain died as RHD was suddenly "just as detrimental" to warriors (read; martial adepts) as it always was for casters.

Seriously, they were lauded so hard that they were even mistakenly listed as tier 3 classes in the old tier listing when only the swordsage has a shot at actually warranting it. They all fight pretty well but the warblade can't do anything else, the crusader can kind of half-ass heal, and the swordsage can make a passable scout if you spec for it. They're all every bit as reliant as any other warrior on gear, feat, and race optimization to be competitive at higher levels.


Absolutely. The full ubercharger package is poor practical optimization, no doubt. The real offensive challenge for non-caster damage builds is IME instead their lack of means to spread their love.

As long as you can bring the enemy down in a timely fashion, going too far hurts your other abilities more than it helps your damage dealing. If you can instagib the target, odds are pretty good you're going to have troubles with finding and reaching him.


Perhaps, but the problem is that skills are still significantly less powerful than spells for overcoming both combat and non-combat challenges.

Half the spells that are touted as silver bullets to non-combat challenges do so by simply giving substantial boosts to skill checks. Or otherwise accomplish the same thing that a skill check can do better.

Charm is the result of a diplomacy roll with more drawbacks, invisibility is just HiPS and a good hide mod, silence is a debuff while zone of silence is only better than move silently if you have the space for it. None of the spells that allow you to find traps allow you to do so well by itself and even then only by directly boosting your search mod and/or temporarily giving you trapfinding or something like it. Flight only obviates jumping and climbing when it becomes an always-on or at-will ability and it only obviates swim (niche skill, I'll admit) when you're staying strictly above the surface. And all of that presumes you're not trying to get to or through a place that isn't warded against any of those effects in particular or magic in general.



If this is actually the case, it's beyond stupid. Who expects to come up with any truths about the game when only including half of it?

It's one of the dumbest, most consistent things I've had to deal with in these discussions. I'm honestly a bit surprised I'm not getting a lot more pushback on it this time around. A pleasant surprise, mind, but a surprise nonetheless.


I must have given advice on hundreds of PF builds by now, and I've so far never heard of a game without feats or magic items (or equivalent). The same goes for 4e, btw. And the "default" for PF seems to be basically "everything on Archives of Nethys is fine", meaning all 1PP options are allowed. Though it does appear that 3.5 stands out as having the far least reliable and most restrictive "standard", where any option outside of core may very well not be allowed in several games, often solely on the basis of whether the GM owns the publication it was found in.

It has, I hope, gotten at least somewhat better in the last few years. People that want a "core only" style of game have largely moved on to 5e. Unfortunately, a lot of players who don't want to fight with multiclassing and prestige classes have largely moved on to PF and its archetype system. Most of what's been left behind still playing 3e are what I only half-jokingly call caster supremacists; players who make the kind of arguments I've outlined and play primarily to run top-tier casters played to the limit of their ability. At least on the forums, anyway. My local pool of players is... sparse, so I'm not sure how things go on the offline front (current group is comprised of me, a roomate, and a couple of guys who don't even live on the same continent playing over roll20.)


Such as a permanent Spot bonus of 79+? Really?

+70 and no. That's -way- past target, playing up to the game's ivory tower design. Target at level 18 for a primary skill is more like 40 or so. I was making a point about what was possible on that one, not what's expected. In the case of spot, it's enough that invisibility alone isn't enough to be an adequate sneak or that listen will allow you to reliably pinpoint foes that aren't either stealth oriented in general or outright silent. LOLing at illusion without truesight should be enough to give pause to the "non-casters are useless" crowd though.


Which is precisely the power the non-casters need to be able to match.

That's not power, it's versatility. Power is plowing through the numbers game.

That aside, there are a number of ways to get the ability to make touch attacks with a weapon (some magical, some not) for full damage and, more importantly, to deliver rider effects from any of a number of sources. BFC can be accomplished with a number of builds or simply bought in the form of expendables for high-difficulty fights where they're needed rather than trivializing.

I'll acknowledge that changing the face of the battlefield in an instant is pretty much exclusively the realm of magic with the exception of collapsing structures by taking out architectural points.


Do they? In comparison to the polymorphed casters and their minions?

Certainly. A gish can certainly give the non-caster warrior a run for his money but a normal caster will struggle to keep up and summoned and called minions are a joke by comparison until gate comes online. He's a -lot- less vulnerable to being dispelled or banished too.


And even if they do, the -fighting- you describe is not in any way a rare combat strength at this level, but a rather minor element of combat which practically everyone and their mother can cover well enough if needed, casters included.

That's one of those persistent rumors that's not borne out in play. Unless you can nerf level appropriate foes into the ground, which you have to both know how to do and have the appropriate effects available -at the time of battle-, getting up to speed for a fight is a non-trivaial affair. If you're regularly catching your enemies with their pants down and the GM is virtually never catching you off guard, it's because you've got greater system mastery than he does and he isn't willing to just fudge it.


Hardly high-op IMO, but I can agree that it's also not exactly low-op.

???

It's a mailman that's going for ability damage rather than straight damage. It's a pretty good ways from low-op.


I simply meant that the titan is probably not even half as strong as the CR implies when alone and without reliable means to prepare (a large part of which would be using its summoning SLAs) or at least win initiative.

If you're swinging that far above your weight class, knocking on the front door and issuing a formal challenge is virtually suicidal. If you give it -any- time to prepare, you're going through a menagerie of SNA IX critters before you get anywhere near the titan himself and he'll have gated in something to stand beside him (bumping the EL of the encounter). A level 18 caster isn't going to fare any better against a fully prepared EL 23+ encounter that's waiting for him to show up than any other character of that level will, save -maybe- an artificer who's willing to sink a small fortune on it.


Sure, but the problem is those aren't the real threats, and the warrior isn't needed to deal with them. That kind of combat prowess just isn't enough on its own to justify the warrior's existence as a PC in the party.

They're not real threats if you have the info, opprotunity, and ability to prepare for them but that's true of virtually any challenge for any character. If you don't assume you'll be perfectly prepared, even that titan or the dragon we've been discussing can be a real problem even on the merit of their melee abilities.

Even if you -can- call in something to adequately fill the role of a warrior, that's tacitly admitting that role needs to be filled. That you can call in something to fill that role both adequately and frequently without expending substantial resources is a claim that will have to be justified.


My point was that despite the many flaws and weaknesses of a lowly ubercharger type of build with very little combat versatility to speak of, it would still likely easily win this fight.

If, and only if, the fight starts under such circumstances that he can, in fact, charge the titan and guarantee 3 hits against it by my estimation. If you don't drop him on that initial rocket shot, the fight gets a -lot- harder in one hell of a hurry and you're a lot less likely to have answers to the rest of the fight if you're not a well balanced warrior.


While I don't agree with what you say is commonly touted; relative to casters; high-level, lower tier warriors are very weak adventurers. Even in combat, even though they're much stronger in than outside of combat.

It's all down to system mastery and saavy play. Having relatively easier access to various tools that let you come at problems isn't the same as having exclusive access to them. Not much of what casters do to be "better" adventurers are things that can't be done by non-casters just a bit slower. Massive chunks of what's done through divination can be done with mundane legwork. Traveling the world and the planes just takes longer when you have to hoof it or buy/steal/rent a vehicle instead of teleporting or plane shifting. For the few things that can only be handled by magic (usually because they're magical obstacles) you've just got to shell out that fat wad of cash. Tools for dispelling, breaking wards, breaking curses, etc are all available without having to have a spell list.


Just because an ancient blue dragon can be reduced to bruiser doesn't mean it is one by default, and it's neither described as one or implied to be one when looking at its abilities. Skirmisher/caster maybe.

If you're a bruiser, your whole job is to get to the other guy and bruise him. If you can't do that then you really don't need to be part of that particular adventure. The trick then, is actaully getting to him to do it.

If you know what you're facing, making target specific preparations is just an obvious thing to do.


The specifics don't really matter as there are so many options available to the dragon to achieve the same result. The points I was trying to get across are that the dragon's spells can easily make it highly likely the dragon will at least:

I get the point. My counterclaims are as much to show that it's -not- as trivial as you or others think as it is to poke holes in those particular strategems.


have much more useful info on your warblade's specific combat strengths and weaknesses than vice versa

This is predicated on the presumption that the dragon will -know- that a foe is inbound. You can't just handwaive that concern away. Reading the future with pinpoint accuracy for the purpose of acting on that reading is a logical paradox. It simply can't be done because of its self-defeating nature.

If you're just playing odds and working in broad strokes, then you run the risk of being wrong, just like anyone else, no matter how monumentally great your intellect might be.

As for PC info gathering ability, humanoid peoples are known for their penchant for collecting stories, rumors, and histories. If I'm after this beast, there's a reason and there's probably -somebody- I can ask if I don't want to spend a whole lot of money granting myself the ability to simply use divinations just like the dragon. If the dragon has its own contacts, then what we have is a whole adventure that culminates in the dragon fight, by which we know just about everything we reasonable could or need to about one another.

No man or lizard is an island.



be aware of your warlord's presence in the vicinity before he's aware of the dragon

Unless I'm the only high level adventurer in the area, and I'll grant you that's not so very unlikely given the default demographics, my being there isn't necessarily noteworthy in itself. If I am the only high level adventurer in the area and I'm not already after the dragon, why am I even here? Quick-traveling over the boonies was a thing like seven or eight levels back.


be fully prepared and buffed to the teeth when combat begins

He'd have to know when I was coming to within the hour, at least. As I discussed both in my last post and previously in this one, that's an extraordinary supposition that has to be justified better than "divination magic told him so." Even then, buff removal is step one for dealing with casters at any level and that only grows in importance as level increases.


be able to initiate combat without your warlord having any short duration buffs up

A talisman or crafted contingent spell with the infusion Armor Enhancemnt tuned to the baneblind quality is 350 or 700 gp, respectively. Upon activating the bane blind quality, I get one minute in which I'm completely imperceptible to the beast's natural senses. As for getting to within a minute of approaching, there are quite a few options. Invisibility and zone of silence are actually likely to do okay here, although invisibility is dicey with the dragon's spot check being as high as it is. Assuming I don't just pop in on him with a skull-talisman of teleport tuned to his lair.

Gonna have to really pony up for this one. Since it's hoard is worth more than half my WBL though, it's definitely well worth it to splurge a little, even if it means buying more task specific gear than would normally be appropriate.



Of course, anything having to do with looking into the future has a high risk of being problematic and often demands plenty of GM fiat. But the actually relevant "fair play" here is that the dragon should of course present a truly difficult challenge, as appropriate for its CR, also to an 18th level caster PC just as optimized as your warblade. Which among other things means the dragon will most likely at the very least know of every spell related trick the caster knows of that it can perform, and that it will use its magic abilities to the very maximum of its capability. The fact that a non-caster such as the warblade can't handle that is, well, precisely my point.

There you go making that overbold, "common wisdom" assumption again. it's also of note that every divination effect the creatures has at its disposal is one less option for taking down those threats it's trying to find. It casts as a -sorcerer- you'll recall. It has access to the cleric list as well as the sorcerer/wizard list but it still only knows -2- 6th level spells. Knowing what's coming isn't all that helpful if you learn what's coming is something you have no adequate response to.


An effect of this is btw that if this was actually a real game with a reasonably competent GM, your warblade would most likely have a better chance if he was less optimized, since the abilities and actual power of the dragon are largely in the hands of the GM even when keeping strictly to what the MM entry and the DMG guidelines say.

True dragons were always meant to be boss encounters. They're notoriously "under CRed" according to the community. That an optimized warblade -can- pose a threat to one that's supposed to be near the limit of a level 18 party's capability should be a damning indictment of the idea that warriors can't keep up at high level all by itself.


Ah, yes. My 3.5-fu isn't what it used to be. Sorry. Please change that to say maximized ray of stupidity (8 x 5(?) Int damage, average 40) or some similar stacking no-save-just-suck ray.[/qutoe]

Skull talisman or rune of friendly fire; just direct the rays elsewhere. 2800 or 1400 gp, respectively. If the dragon's inside that 30ft, send them back at him.

[quote]Uh... Is my 3.5 op-fu suddenly better than yours? Or has Arcane Thesis, Improved Metamagic and Practical Metamagic been changed since 2008?

Arcane thesis applies to one spell, improved metamagic only reduces the overall spell level by 1 (nerfed in the transition between ELH and DMG), and practical metamagic only applies to one metamagic. So with that -one- spell, you can pull that.

For the dragon to put all its eggs in that one spellcasting basket seems like a bad idea to me but whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

In any case, that's 8 of your 12 feats down; twin, split ray, maximize, (undefined meta), imp metamagic, arcane thesis, and practical metamagic (twin or split), rapdid metamagic. Still feel like 12 is a lot?


I haven't even considered rods.

First thing that comes to my mind, honestly. Actually paying for the higher level slots is rarely worth it.


Oh come on now; Rapid Metamagic of course! Again, no rods, and should still be doable precisely as I described it, in the very first turn.

Honestly, I could've sworn there was a limit of one metamagic for spontaneous application but I can't remember where the rule is. I'll concede this unless someone else can find it. Still can't do both unless you blow another feat on a second arcane thesis. If you're sticking with that change to ray of stupidity, any method of gaining immunity to mind-affecting in general or compulsion specifically kills its effect outright. Such as a tattoo of personal mindblank for 6600. The same article that makes high level tattoos possible (mind's eye: getting wired) also gives the means to make them permanent if you're psionic.


Stop right there! Rapid Metamagic remember? I'm pretty sure the only item the dragon might need to do what I described in its very first turn is that cheap thing in MIC which prevents dazed 1/day (Third Eye something?). Costs less than 5k IIRC.

So you're just going nova on the first round of combat with a barage of rays (touch AC), that are enchantment (compulsion) effects (immunities), and allows spell resistance (race choice, magic items). Three ways to stop it and you expect a high level warrior to have -none- of them, even if he has time to prepare for the battle?


Except Rapid Metamagic. Has that become some kind of obscure niche feat nobody knows about these days? And shouldn't 40 Int damage be more than enough to make a warblade about as capable as a dead tulip?

See above.


(And speaking of action economy, the dragon could also have say a contingency and use its breath as a free action during its first turn, on top casting those eight rays.)

Quicken breath makes 9. Contingencies are cheap so that goes both ways.


It's only 10'? I must remember some pimped up version. Well scrap that then, doesn't matter anyways.

Every spell has its limitations.


Yes, so no single-attack strikes for the warblade.

And? Full attacks do adequate damage here even before picking up a few boosts. White raven tactics and a belt of battle both say hello, btw. At 18, time stands still is on the table yet too. In order, those are I burn a maneuver and take an extra turn right after finish one, I burn a swift action for up to an extra full round of actions, and I get two full attacks back to back as one full round action.


Nah, rather prevents the dragon from using WoC on the warblade's first turn. Which it's very unlikely to be in need of btw.

Pop in on a TP, while imperceptable to the dragon, then drop a standard action strike, followed by 3 full attacks on the alpha-strike. [color=blue]Yes, clearly there's no threat to the dragon here.[/blue]

Seriously, I've burned, what, maybe 10k gold on expendables on a dragon hunt that's expected to grosse a quarter milllion? Nevermind really simple stuff like a couple runes to augment my weapon with dragonbane and dragondoom to grab an extra 6d6 on every hit for another 100gp.


Is it common in your games that sorcerers have a worse initiative than warblades by 13th level? Or is it more common that they have tons of stuff beyond and above their Dex bonus to ensure they win initiative?

Goes both ways. Going first can certainly be important but it's not always the most important thing. There's always the nerveskitter, contingency, celerity combo if you feel like you absolutely -have- to go first. Foresight for an actual high level sorcerer makes that combo just plain unfair but you're a pretty good ways away from low-op by then too.


Regardless, assume the dragon uses every plausible resource in order to ensure it goes first, especially if it can't make sure to get a surprise round.

Short of the nerveskitter, contingency, celerity combo it doesn't have many plausible resources to spend on initiative. Especially with you having already spent 9 of 12 feats, having no familiar, and there being relatively few items to boost it by only small amounts. I mean, honestly it's already over the line for how many of its feats -should- be associated with the magic it's only had for about 2/3 of its HDs. Could be explained away with retraining since most metas don't have prerequisites or only more meta as prerequisites but it's still questionable.


Shouldn't we let someone who has actually played the game at least a few times during the last 11 years put together the dragon? I think you'll find plenty of Playgrounders who'd be up to the challenge.

I mean, you're nearly there but for the spell selection and a couple of feats but I'm not going to demand you do it if you don't want to.


IME they'd be very near certain in this case. And I say that after having seen very highly optimized non-casters as well as casters and caster monsters in actual play. A sole warblade 18 stands virtually no chance of actually winning a fight against an optimized ancient blue in a real game.

I wonder how many properly optimized non-casters you've seen then. Given that it's harder because of the more scatterd nature of non-caster options, it'd be no surprise if it's a substantially lower number.

I can only guess at PF having a lower optimization ceiling than 3e but the scuttlebut that I've heard is that it is. Don't know how much of a role that's playing here.


So for example the multiple rays of stupidity, celerity, wings of cover etc wouldn't be possible?

Possible, yes. Insurmountable, no.


It's the type of threat that matters. It would of course be two dragons or one with some minions against two PCs.

In the former case, it's as I've said. "Hulk" takes one dragon, Strange takes the other and, most likely, hulk comes to finish off the largely incapacitated dragon that Strange likely hasn't actually killed for lack of means to actually deliver the killing blow.


Note that I wasn't asking about the actual Hulk and Strange.

Obviously. We could do something much closer to Hulk properly on a build that involves levels in stoneblessed, barbarian, frenzied berserker, and war hulk. Ends up with strength in the upper 50s to lower 60s but can't do squat outside of the whole "smash" thing but for his gear. Could just arm-wrestle the dragon for its hoard.


Nor is such a character suitable for fighting dragons or other enemies actually challenging for a higher level caster.

Sure it is. Dragons aren't known for subtelty or subterfuge. They're presumably not incapable but unless they're playing Xorvintaal they tend to be loners with little care who knows roughly where they roost.


It's pretty much the same for me, and a large majority of the more important NPCs I create.

In all but three of my last dozen or so characters, I don't think I've put more than 3 levels into the same class on any of them. :smallbiggrin:

As you might guess from that, most of them are not spellcasters. The ones that were casters were all theurges of some sort.

[quote]This. So much.

Well obviously. Guy with sword only works in high level play if he's -way- savvier than guy with sword from low and mid level play. At least if we're kickin' out the jams on optimization level. Mundane was left behind long ago.

[Lans]

Seriously, they were lauded so hard that they were even mistakenly listed as tier 3 classes in the old tier listing when only the swordsage has a shot at actually warranting it. They all fight pretty well but the warblade can't do anything else, the crusader can kind of half-ass heal, and the swordsage can make a passable scout if you spec for it. They're all every bit as reliant as any other warrior on gear, feat, and race optimization to be competitive at higher levels.

.

I don't think they are every bit as reliant on race and feat choices to be competitive. Other warriors seem to be reliant on charging, and needing heedless charge for that to work while warblades have a stance and manuever that can replicate that so they are more free to spend its feats on adding versitility via the binding, incarnum or heritage feats.

[AvatarVecna]

Also on that same point, the updated and argued-out-by-the-community tier rankings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!) for the ToB classes places them all within T3 as well. If you give that credence.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't think they are every bit as reliant on race and feat choices to be competitive. Other warriors seem to be reliant on charging, and needing heedless charge for that to work while warblades have a stance and manuever that can replicate that so they are more free to spend its feats on adding versitility via the binding, incarnum or heritage feats.

White raven's Leading the charge and Tiger Claw's Pouncing charge, yeah? The former is available to anyone who cares for 3k as long as they have another white raven maneuver (at 1/2 IL, granted) and pounce is easily had as well.

That's not enough, btw, even for a full initiator. It's your level in extra damage, no different from an equal level soulborn's smite. If you're going to be a proper charger, you're still going to need power attack and shocktrooper to mitigate power attack's penalty. You've replaced leap attack with a stance and negated the need for a barbarian dip, that's it. So, yes, just as feat dependent.

Then, of course, there's the fact that charging isn't optimal unless all you're thinking about is damage, as was previously discussed in this thread.

If all you're getting out of your race is a couple pluses, you're not making nearly as much use of it as you could be. Flight, senses, and SLAs are all available with little to no level adjustment.



Also on that same point, the updated and argued-out-by-the-community tier rankings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!) for the ToB classes places them all within T3 as well. If you give that credence.

I haven't really given that more than a cursory glance. Looks to me like they just reinvented the wheel. At a glance though, I suspect more than a little user bias crept into those rankings. The idea that a warblade is both more powerul and more versatile than a paladin or ranger (of neither the mystic nor wildshape variety) is practically laughable.

Don't get it twisted. I -like- ToB. I like it a lot. Initiators are still largely just beatsticks though. The swordsage can spec a decent scount/infiltrator but that's pretty much it for the non-combat utility of the entire book.

[Sleven]

I've only skimmed the last 2 pages or so, but I generally agree with Kelb here. The issues are nowhere near as glaring or problematic as people try to make them out to be. Mundanes hold up just fine against CR appropriate challenges while still maintaining their identity.

The real issue is the misconception that this is not the case or somehow needs to be "fixed". Except most "fixes" tend to just be limiting sources, which actually hurts the mundanes more than it does the casters.


I haven't really given that more than a cursory glance. Looks to me like they just reinvented the wheel. At a glance though, I suspect more than a little user bias crept into those rankings. The idea that a warblade is both more powerul and more versatile than a paladin or ranger (of neither the mystic nor wildshape variety) is practically laughable.

Don't get it twisted. I -like- ToB. I like it a lot. Initiators are still largely just beatsticks though. The swordsage can spec a decent scount/infiltrator but that's pretty much it for the non-combat utility of the entire book.

The lack of knowledge among the general forum populous is a glaring weakness of those threads. As are the assumptions made. For example, the hexblade gets ranked significantly below the fighter because it's not as good at traditional fighting, more or less. The fact that it has spells and class features that allow it to approach fights in its own unique way that is significantly more versatile and effective than that of a fighter never seems to be considered. Somehow we're also supposed to suspend our belief that a class's power is not just dependent on the class's capabilities, but also how someone completely new to 3.5 D&D would play it. It's beyond silly.

EDIT: The only real tier list there should be is one that starts with prepared casters and works its way down to mundanes.

[Lans]

White raven's Leading the charge and Tiger Claw's Pouncing charge, yeah? The former is available to anyone who cares for 3k as long as they have another white raven maneuver (at 1/2 IL, granted) and pounce is easily had as well.

That's not enough, btw, even for a full initiator. It's your level in extra damage, no different from an equal level soulborn's smite. If you're going to be a proper charger, you're still going to need power attack and shocktrooper to mitigate power attack's penalty. You've replaced leap attack with a stance and negated the need for a barbarian dip, that's it. So, yes, just as feat dependent.
.

I feel that the shocktrooper gets into overkill territory, a straight full attack can be pretty deadly against most foes. but I'll look at some numbers in a bit






The idea that a warblade is both more powerul and more versatile than a paladin or ranger (of neither the mystic nor wildshape variety) is practically laughable.



The lack of knowledge among the general forum populous is a glaring weakness of those threads. As are the assumptions made. For example, the hexblade gets ranked significantly below the fighter because it's not as good at traditional fighting, more or less. The fact that it has spells and class features that allow it to approach fights in its own unique way that is significantly more versatile and effective than that of a fighter never seems to be considered.

Well you could make a case on why the paladin and ranger are more powerful or versatile than the warblade or go over how the hexblades spells let it approach fights in ways with signifigantly more versatility and effectiveness than that of a fighter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I feel that the shocktrooper gets into overkill territory, a straight full attack can be pretty deadly against most foes. but I'll look at some numbers in a bit


Oh it definitely does if you're dumping your whole BAB into it and have a couple multipliers. It's not a bad feat, all in all, but the conventional wisdom tactic of "screw AC. If it's still alive after you rocket into its chest, you're screwed anyway" is not the best use of it.

I usually use it, on the characters that have it, to shave a few points off of both attack and AC so that I can hit particularly hard without leaving myself essentially defenseless against a counterattack from either the target or its allies. Combines nicely with combat brute's momentum swing if you've got feats to burn, e.g. a fighter.

Full-tilt chargers -can- put out enough damage to drop most targets in one round. Shocktrooper won't get you there on its own even with pounce. Still, you'll notice I used "can" and "most" in that sentence. Betting everything on that one rocket is great when it hits and you -pay- when it doesn't. You can't do it in the low levels at all and it's horribly unreliable at high. Even in mid levels, there are both soft and hard counters.







Well you could make a case on why the paladin and ranger are more powerful or versatile than the warblade or go over how the hexblades spells let it approach fights in ways with signifigantly more versatility and effectiveness than that of a fighter.

Won't speak to the hexblade much. I'm less familiar with it than the others but I don't remember much in the way of standouts in its spell list. If sleven can teach me something here, I'm happy to learn it.

Paladin, on the other hand, I know.

Just going over the paladin's spell list and the warblade's maneuver list should make the versatility question's answer an obvious one; buffs, BFC, and utility are all present in the paladin list before you even get into any optimization trickery to expand that list. The Warblade has a few gems in white raven that could be situationally useful buffs and the eminent white raven tactics, ironheart surge as an emergency button (if you and your DM can agree on its function), tiiger claw's hunter's sense is an extra sense, and... what? Mountain hammer to get through locked doors?

Then there's the power question. Ya want to know a twisted little secret? Most of the standard action strikes don't actually do much if any more damage than a full attack would at the level you get them. If you've found a way to reliably move and full attack, you've rendered most of those options largely unnecessary and their dependence on one attack roll to do all their damage makes them inherently less reliable than the distributed damage of a full attack. For a paladin, when it's relevant, smite evil can largely offset the lower output of maneuvers picked up via martial study/stance and crown of the white raven type items (1/2 IL). The various boosts, stances, and full round maneuvers can get you on up in the damage departement but the lower level ones are just as available to the paladin, or at least nearly so, just later. The warblade's only real advantage here is that he has some decent debuff options that a paladin has trouble matching. On the pro-paladin side, there are the previously mentioned buffs, as well as the option to take and use divine feats and smite evil. Smite evil has the hardest time since it's limited use and situational but it's not difficult to fix either of those if you want to focus on it.

So that's comparable power and the paladin's got greater versatility but somehow the paladin is T4 while the warblade is T3? I don't think so.

Then there's the ranger.

The spell list isn't as good as the paladin's but it's still solid. At least as good as the warblade's maneuver options, if not better. The ranger is also a skill-type hybrid character and, thus, capable as a scout with fairly minimal effort. This is much closer to a tossup but I'd still give a slight edge to the ranger.

Then there's the power question. Everything I said against warblade's power in the paladin paragraph still holds here as well. The ranger's TWF and arhery options aren't the best for overall damage output, as has been well documented, but it's spell list goes a fair ways toward mitigating the problems of the latter. Favored enemy has an even greater problem with being situational than does smite but with a little effort and some good choices it can still be pretty solid if not spectacular. I'd say the ranger is probably a bit disadvantaged here but not dramatically so.

If a bit more versatile and a bit less powerful doesn't warrant ranger and warblade being in the same tier, then I must have some serious misunderstanding of what a tier rating is supposed to mean.




A crusader is probably a -little- ahead of the warblade (and probably the ranger as well) but definitely either behind or just barely abreast of the paladin.

For all three martial adepts to be in T3 while paladin and ranger are in T4 just plain can't be right. Not if you're looking only at the meta without consideration for popularity or historic precedent.

[Sleven]

Won't speak to the hexblade much. I'm less familiar with it than the others but I don't remember much in the way of standouts in its spell list. If sleven can teach me something here, I'm happy to learn it.

Their spell list is great, here's a few gems:
Charm Person, Unseen Servant, Alter Self, Swift Ready, Glitterdust, Adoration of the Frightful, Animate Weapon, Hound of Doom, Nightmare Terrain, Charm Monster, Arcane Sight, Greater Magic Weapon, Nondetection, Slow, Dimension Door, Contact Other Plane, Enervation, Dominate Person, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, Solid Fog.

Also, I feel like you're underselling the paladin and ranger (for example, you forgot that there's a 1st level spell that gives the paladin scent and bonuses to detect skills for hours/level). On a more notable level, I feel like you should be talking more about how powerful the paladin's special mount is with the DMG's alternative mount rules in effect. Then there's the higher saves. But perhaps most importantly of all, you didn't mention the ACFs that let it do things like: Hide in Plain Sight, Bardic Music, immediate action charge attacks, Greater Dispel with their attacks, etc. The same could be said for the ranger, who has better class abilities for making stealth more practical than it is for a rogue, an ACF that give them Trapfinding, a couple different ones that make their spell list better (without having to go mystic), the cheapness of Enemy Spirit Pouches, and more.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Their spell list is great, here's a few gems:
Charm Person, Unseen Servant, Alter Self, Swift Ready, Glitterdust, Adoration of the Frightful, Animate Weapon, Hound of Doom, Nightmare Terrain, Charm Monster, Arcane Sight, Greater Magic Weapon, Nondetection, Slow, Dimension Door, Contact Other Plane, Enervation, Dominate Person, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, Solid Fog.

Some of those are pretty solid but others are going to have real problems with their DCs. There's a reason I didn't bother bringing up offensive magic on either the ranger or paladin.


Also, I feel like you're underselling the paladin and ranger (for example, you forgot that there's a 1st level spell that gives the paladin scent and bonuses to detect skills for hours/level). On a more notable level, I feel like you should be talking more about how powerful the paladin's special mount is with the DMG's alternative mount rules in effect. Then there's the higher saves. But perhaps most importantly of all, you didn't mention the ACFs that let it do things like: Hide in Plain Sight, Bardic Music, immediate action charge attacks, Greater Dispel with their attacks, etc. The same could be said for the ranger, who has better class abilities for making stealth more practical than it is for a rogue, an ACF that give them Trapfinding, a couple different ones that make their spell list better (without having to go mystic), the cheapness of Enemy Spirit Pouches, and more.

I was, indeed, underselling. Taken to optimization extremes, the martial adepts don't hold a candle to what can be done with a ranger or paladin. The reason I did so is because the tier listings aren't about either of the extremes of baseline competence or top-notch uber-optimization. Heavy optimization can bring both of the core classes to near the top of T3 while the Martial adepts are utterly starved for options. Other than the idiot crusader trick, there's just not much there.

[upho]

It's not that bad. MIC went a long ways toward consolidating the lion's share of it. There's still some diving to be done here and there but it's no worse than optimizing a caster, all in all. If you assume roughly equal degrees of system mastery, the casters and non-casters aren't nearly so far apart.You're probably right if looking at the "average" in relatively low power games with inexperienced players with little system mastery, or low- to mid-power games with very experienced players with tons of system mastery. However, IME the "standard deviation" and probability of C/MD issues is IME still pretty significant with inexperienced players, since the risk of accidentally stumbling upon an OP caster option is considerably greater than stumbling upon an equally problematic non-caster option.

Generally speaking, I believe the probability and severity of C/MD issues steadily increases with the players' degree of system mastery, until they've reached such a high degree they not only know the game can be broken, but can also determine the power of combos well enough to balance to the table simply by reading up on the mechanics. And the higher the level and the higher the power of the game, the more dependent on additional optimization the lower tier/non-caster classes become in order to contribute on par with the casters, up until the point no amount of optimization may compensate for the disparity between the classes.

How much non-caster optimization is made more difficult by options being spread out among such a great number of sources in 3.5 is of course debatable, but since non-casters need to be increasingly more optimized than casters the higher the level and power of the game, it seems likely that on average, balanced non-casters are also dependent on options from more numerous sources and in turn awareness and access to a greater number of sources. IOW, a caster will do just fine in all but very high-power games with access only to core options, while a non-caster needs access to non-core options in all but very low-power games.


At least unless you're stuck in core. They -really- screwed up in core.Yeah, playing core only in higher levels is asking for trouble. And though it's not quite as bad in PF core (ie CRB only) since the power floors of all classes are higher and the most OP and easily abused 3.5 core spells are gone or nerfed, it has exactly the same issue.

Speaking of, I find it kinda funny and sad to see how similar to 3.5 PF1 developed in this regard, with the 1PP options published after core increasing the relative potential of non-casters significantly more than that of casters, including many options seemingly designed specifically to mitigate or remove non-caster limitations established in core. And though I understand the reasons why Paizo didn't dare make more drastic changes to fix 3.5's balance issues in the CRB at the time when it was first released, it has sometimes been very frustrating to see much of the 3.5 scenario being repeated all over again (seemingly also coming to an end in a new edition struggling to compete on the market).


Skill points are less important than you'd think. In fact, unless you're a class with UMD or are willing to go -way- out of your way to get it on your skill list, skill points largely don't figure into it. If you're willing to take a single level in -any- caster class (but especially cleric) then you instantly gain access to a whole host of spell trigger items.What you're saying here mostly confirms my point AFAICT. Which is that once the non-caster and caster has payed the minimum costs required for them to be able to face appropriate challenges and contribute on a roughly equal level at 20th level, according to you the non-caster has spent at least 350,000 gp more than the caster on magic items (weapon, additional stat and AC boosts, additional spell triggers and consumables), plus the costs of attaining a sufficient UMD bonus or the opportunity cost of 1 level dip. That is a quite considerable difference IMO, far more than enough to make a caster noticeable more capable than an equally optimized non-caster.


As I've said, it's not even a problem. Merely a potential one that stems from wildly differing optimization levels within the same group.I disagree. See above. (And yes, I've seen parties including non-casters considerably more optimized than the casters in actual play during at least 3rd to 18th level. And coincidentally, the two non-casters (a warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder/)-based build and a spell-less bloodrager (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/bloodrager/)) in the 12th-level party in my current "long-haul"PF home campaign are definitely higher op than the party's witch.)


I'm not at all familiar with any of those maneuvers but it looks to me like you spent quite a -lot- of resources getting your combat numbers much higher than they needed to be. How many PF creatures have AC in the 50s at CR 20? Hell, at CR24? How many have attack bonuses in that range?First, as mentioned, most of Nelly's basic combat numbers are of course way higher than they'd need to be to overcome level-appropriate challenges according to guidelines, but they're needed to reliably take out the far more dangerous foes of up to CR 30 she was created to fight showcasing the potential of her combined options, since Nelly isn't a caster who can "just go around" numbers as you said.

Second, a very large majority of Nelly's resources were spent on options to enable her melee combos and superior action economy, not her basic combat numbers. But especially some of her class levels also comes with the added bonus of giving her significant boosts to a few basic numbers (notably AC, saves and attack) or great discounts on items to boosts such numbers (weapon enhancement also grant shield enhancement, multiple "weapon slots" providing simultaneous benefits of magic weapon abilities, great use of psychic weapon etc).

For example, less than 10% of her WBL (880k in PF) is actually invested in items granting weapon attack bonuses and not primarily to increase her hit chance with basic attacks, even though those items provide a total of +10 (35k psychic weapon, two +1 wpn enhancement costs for +1 and furious weapon, and 6k iouns for Weapon Focus and +1 competence). Likewise, more than a third of her AC is granted by options Nelly has invested in primarily because of the other benefits they provide (8 shield from monk feature, and 5 dodge and 6 insight from martial maneuvers).

Third, the raw numbers Nelly has actually spent the most resources on is her CMB (Combat Maneuver Bonus) for bull rush and dirty trick (because immunity to daze is practically nonexistent in PF), as most of her combat style and melee combos rely on her being able to beat the often extremely high CMD (Combat Manuever Defense) values of high CR foes. And it so happens that Nelly's weapon attack bonuses also apply to her most important CMB values.


I wouldn't want to be the titan that has to lock horns with that in actual melee but it looks to me like you could bring that down to the titan having a very slim chance (instead of the virtually none it currently has) in a straight fight and open up a whole host of options with the difference for dealing with trickier foes.Well, in a real game she should of course at the very least trade some of her rather silly combat prowess for improved competence outside of combat. And yes, especially with Paizo and DSP material released after she was created, she could be made more capable also against custom GM creations using clever strategies and tactics.

But at least when it comes to dealing with published enemies, her combat prowess is silly enough most of the normal rules don't really apply and tricky foes no longer have much of an edge. I'd estimate that probably less than 20 of more than 3,100 published opponents for PF would have a reasonable chance of defeating her in a real game. A large majority of those below CR 28 or so would likely be lucky to cause her more than minor inconvenience before they're out of the fight, regardless of whether they have time to prepare, awesome magic abilities, guaranteed surprise round and/or vastly superior initiative. For example, an enemy within 410' or so attempting to cause Nelly any form of harm or detrimental effect would in many cases commit suicide, since even in a surprise round or before she has acted, she'd gain two standard and a move as an immediate action, allowing her to void the enemy's attempt and to casually daze and demoralize it (and most of its nearby allies) into uselessness for several rounds.

In addition, psychic reformation, a few other nifty powers plus UMD for carefree wand/dorje use allow for quite a bit of versatility if needed, also outside of combat. The zealot class features and some of Nelly's maneuvers also provide some great party support and ally protection especially in combat, making her far stronger in a leader type of role than any ToB options allow for. But of course, against foes custom made by the GM, especially those with plenty of caster and/or initiator power, Nelly isn't necessarily nearly as superior, and the trickiness of such foes might very well make a considerable difference. Although this is naturally the case for any PC, regardless of power.

And last but not least, the greatest reason why Nelly's so extremely combat focused is because she was made as an example build for a guide (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3Bga5DyWoLW054p55E7V0rBLZbshPpEHzTjLFFYUqI/edit) to the zealot (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/zealot/) (a full-bab leader-/defender-ish PoW initiator class with some psionic abilities), first and foremost to showcase build combos with great combat synergies and the potential of some of the most highly rated combat options in the the guide.

The fact that Nelly also happens to be great in a combat role/function supposedly reserved for casters and wreaks havoc on many of the established expectations and beliefs regarding high-level non-/low-casters - especially those expressed by 3.5 players on forums like this - is just a (very delicious) rebellious icing on the cake... A tank who can actually actively defend her allies instead of being an easily bypassed passive meat-shield? A (near) full-bab pointy stick-wielder who doesn't take foes out by beating them to death? With superior action economy without using spells or powers? Who doesn't even want Power Attack? Blasphemy! All of it! :smalltongue:


Not really. Detection, bypssing obstacles and defenses to reach and then attack, dealing adequate harm with whatever offense you use; the flavors change, the principles don't.Appears we're discussing semantics here. I'm simply saying that the challenges other than "dealing adequate harm" you mention - those I'd collectively call "targeting negation" - are significantly more numerous, diverse and powerful in high-level combat than they are during lower levels, while "dealing adequate harm" once those challenges have been overcome is typically less problematic than during earlier levels, especially for a 3.5 warrior because of the numerous powerful and easily accessible melee DPR boosts available to them. So the problem is a combatant needs a boatload of different "silver bullets" to overcome the various high-level targeting negation stuff, and a caster has easy access to all of them and is able to make reliable and efficient use of them, while a warrior has few and also has to deal with a greater number of such stuff (melee comes with a lot of targeting requirements which most spells don't have).

In addition, the same is true when it comes to enemies' offense vs a PC's overall durability (=the total net value/effectiveness/power of a PC's reactive and passive abilities which prevent enemy offense from reducing combat effectiveness); the high-level enemies' offensive abilities being significantly more numerous and diverse than during earlier levels, while the average warrior's durability remains far too one-dimensional to be as great as the caster's durability.

IOW, there's a very good reason why people call combat during higher (and the very earliest) levels "rocket-tag", even though warriors are the most able to reliably one-shot enemies during earlier levels.

Coincidentally, this is one of the areas in which PoW is superior to ToB, having several options designed with the actual challenges of high-level combat in mind, especially when it comes to durability and action economy.


They're not at all. Yet ToB was treated as a panacea for the problems of martial characters for a while. The "obvious superiority" of ToB classes, with perhaps a few dips, pushed out pretty much all of the class building elements on the martial side of things. Since they were similar enough to casters and their powers largely independent of what they're attached to, they got the same treatment: focus on the maneuvers, pick a race with +X to your primary or secondary ability or just go human for the bonus feat, pick a good weapon, end of discussion. Actual discussion of gear to cover your ass has been relegated to the "list of necessary items" and race discussion just plain died as RHD was suddenly "just as detrimental" to warriors (read; martial adepts) as it always was for casters.Guess that's what one might expect from the echo chamber... :smallsigh:


Seriously, they were lauded so hard that they were even mistakenly listed as tier 3 classes in the old tier listing when only the swordsage has a shot at actually warranting it. They all fight pretty well but the warblade can't do anything else, the crusader can kind of half-ass heal, and the swordsage can make a passable scout if you spec for it. They're all every bit as reliant as any other warrior on gear, feat, and race optimization to be competitive at higher levels.I don't really think the original "definitions" of the tiers are exact or applicable enough to be used in the manner a lot of people seem to use them. But IME ToB classes will on the whole certainly contribute more to a party's overall chances of success than any other non-/low-caster classes does in a vast majority of 3.5 games, even if the ToB classes' general versatility isn't always superior.


As long as you can bring the enemy down in a timely fashion, going too far hurts your other abilities more than it helps your damage dealing.Yeah, anything overkill is poor PO. It appears to me quite a few people find this difficult to understand.


If you can instagib the target, odds are pretty good you're going to have troubles with finding and reaching him.Probably in 3.5, yeah. (Less so in PF, and a lot less so with PoW. For example, by far the most effective and reliable dispeller in PF is typically a barbarian or bloodrager with spell sunder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/spell-sunder-su/) and some rather basic mobility and targeting abilities. The same barbarian or bloodrager may certainly also be able to instagib the average level-appropriate target, not rarely in the same turn as dispelling the target's most effective magic defenses. It's just sad that abilities like these are practically non-existent in 3.5 and too few and generally inaccessible in PF.)


Half the spells that are touted as silver bullets to non-combat challenges do so by simply giving substantial boosts to skill checks. Or otherwise accomplish the same thing that a skill check can do better.

Charm is the result of a diplomacy roll with more drawbacks, invisibility is just HiPS and a good hide mod, silence is a debuff while zone of silence is only better than move silently if you have the space for it. None of the spells that allow you to find traps allow you to do so well by itself and even then only by directly boosting your search mod and/or temporarily giving you trapfinding or something like it. Flight only obviates jumping and climbing when it becomes an always-on or at-will ability and it only obviates swim (niche skill, I'll admit) when you're staying strictly above the surface. And all of that presumes you're not trying to get to or through a place that isn't warded against any of those effects in particular or magic in general.So why is it that a party of non-/low-casters doesn't have nearly the same chance - if any at all - to be successful in published adventures as a party of casters has?


It has, I hope, gotten at least somewhat better in the last few years. People that want a "core only" style of game have largely moved on to 5e. Unfortunately, a lot of players who don't want to fight with multiclassing and prestige classes have largely moved on to PF and its archetype system. Most of what's been left behind still playing 3e are what I only half-jokingly call caster supremacists; players who make the kind of arguments I've outlined and play primarily to run top-tier casters played to the limit of their ability. At least on the forums, anyway. My local pool of players is... sparse, so I'm not sure how things go on the offline front (current group is comprised of me, a roomate, and a couple of guys who don't even live on the same continent playing over roll20.)Seems plausible. Although in forum discussions comparing PF and 3.5my impression has actually been that most 3.5 players claim they don't like PF because they believe non-casters are at least as weak in comparison to casters, saying "PF only removed caster cheese no sane GM allows anyways, while adding more powerful caster stuff and lengthening combat feat chains". Which I guess mostly says they're ignorant of PF's options for non-casters, not that they'd rather play high-op 3.5 casters.


+70 and no. That's -way- past target, playing up to the game's ivory tower design. Target at level 18 for a primary skill is more like 40 or so. I was making a point about what was possible on that one, not what's expected. In the case of spot, it's enough that invisibility alone isn't enough to be an adequate sneak or that listen will allow you to reliably pinpoint foes that aren't either stealth oriented in general or outright silent. LOLing at illusion without truesight should be enough to give pause to the "non-casters are useless" crowd though.OK. I was sorta assuming a comparable high level of optimization for the caster side, which may explain quite a bit...


That's not power, it's versatility. Power is plowing through the numbers game.Huh? Don't you know power is power (https://youtu.be/eTkxsPBTrnk?t=50)? :smallbiggrin: Seriously though, what makes "plowing through the numbers game" being about power but not versatility, and bypassing the need to do so being about versatility but not power? Seems like a highly arbitrary, subjective and poor definition of the word "power" also in this context.

And at least AFAICT, you yourself agree that those able to bypass the numbers can undeniably gain greater power than those who "plow through the numbers game".


That aside, there are a number of ways to get the ability to make touch attacks with a weapon (some magical, some not) for full damage and, more importantly, to deliver rider effects from any of a number of sources.Rider effects allowing you to reliably and decisively take enemies out without having to reduce their hp? Examples?


BFC can be accomplished with a number of builds or simply bought in the form of expendables for high-difficulty fights where they're needed rather than trivializing.Such as the ability to threaten a 40'+ radius and have any attempted movement (including poofaporting or by incorporeal enemies) inside that area provoke and the triggered AoO reliably void the triggering action/effect? To reliably reposition multiple enemies within the area each round and scare even undead and constructs s**tless enough to panic and be incapable of taking offensive actions? To also knock them prone, blind them and tie them up with virtually no chance of escape? While ignoring and/or dispelling magic/supernatural defenses/effects such as invisibility, mirror image, FoM, utterdark, displacement, prismatic orb, AMF, etc?

Though slightly exaggerated, these are the kind of combat abilities warriors need to be effective in roles other than "single-target striker" and be on par with casters in higher levels. Without the need of additional actions to rummage in backpacks, drink potions or activate items. This is also a part of the reason why I believe simply adding additional levels to a 3.5 fighter won't really address the issues. (Coincidentally, a PoW build could actually have most of the above abilities, but the level of optimization required for such a build is rather insane, and won't grant any abilities remotely as useful outside of combat.)


I'll acknowledge that changing the face of the battlefield in an instant is pretty much exclusively the realm of magic with the exception of collapsing structures by taking out architectural points.Thankfully also not the only form of effective BFC. Having basically a large aura of "nope, you're out" will do (see above).


Certainly. A gish can certainly give the non-caster warrior a run for his money but a normal caster will struggle to keep up and summoned and called minions are a joke by comparison until gate comes online. He's a -lot- less vulnerable to being dispelled or banished too.My memory of druidzillas, wizards-turned-war-trolls and especially CL-boosted binding must be off then. (In PF, during all levels beyond the earliest, for example a summoning-focused conjuration wizard, not to mention a summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/) with the stupid Master Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/archetypes/paizo-summoner-archetypes/master-summoner) or Synthesist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/archetypes/paizo-summoner-archetypes/synthesist/) archetype, can be considerably more capable in combat against level-appropriate enemies than a PF fighter. The same goes for high-level necromancers.)


That's one of those persistent rumors that's not borne out in play. Unless you can nerf level appropriate foes into the ground, which you have to both know how to do and have the appropriate effects available -at the time of battle-, getting up to speed for a fight is a non-trivaial affair. Indeed, but it's still far more trivial for a caster than for a warrior getting up to speed via items. In large part because of the vastly superior action economy boost and many "cast now, benefit all day/for days/forever" options available to a caster which a warrior won't be able to replicate. For example, a warrior won't be able to replicate even the relatively straight-forward multi-ray casting I suggested for the dragon, especially not repeatedly.


If you're regularly catching your enemies with their pants down and the GM is virtually never catching you off guard, it's because you've got greater system mastery than he does and he isn't willing to just fudge it.Sure, but it's not as if the warrior has much of an advantage, if any at all, when caught with his pants down in higher levels.


It's a mailman that's going for ability damage rather than straight damage. It's a pretty good ways from low-op.See above about the expected op-level here. There's a reason I didn't even mention the dragon's illusion SLAs. And yes, high-op would probably involve (plenty of) additional tricks.


If you're swinging that far above your weight class, knocking on the front door and issuing a formal challenge is virtually suicidal. If you give it -any- time to prepare, you're going through a menagerie of SNA IX critters before you get anywhere near the titan himself and he'll have gated in something to stand beside him (bumping the EL of the encounter). A level 18 caster isn't going to fare any better against a fully prepared EL 23+ encounter that's waiting for him to show up than any other character of that level will, save -maybe- an artificer who's willing to sink a small fortune on it.It wouldn't typically this black or white IME, more a case of the titan being able to use one or two of its most powerful SLA's before being engaged in melee. And my point was that this would likely be enough to delay and exhaust a warblade enough the titan can send him to kingdom come with plain damage.


Even if you -can- call in something to adequately fill the role of a warrior, that's tacitly admitting that role needs to be filled. That you can call in something to fill that role both adequately and frequently without expending substantial resources is a claim that will have to be justified.But you rarely have to fill that role IME, at least not in higher levels. And while minions can be great damage dealers and meat shields to distract and hinder enemies with, that's far from their only strength. Especially at higher levels, I'd say the great versatility granted by their possible magic abilities tend to be more of a boon. Btw, I remember an old Gleemax thread where they put four BFC-focused conjuration wizards through a gauntlet of challenges, mostly from published adventures IIRC, starting at 4th and continuing up to 16th or so. Especially the earlier level combats were painfully slow due to the wizard's pitiful damage dealing capabilities, but the enemies sure didn't have much of chance to cause any harm or escape an excruciatingly slow but certain death.


If, and only if, the fight starts under such circumstances that he can, in fact, charge the titan and guarantee 3 hits against it by my estimation. If you don't drop him on that initial rocket shot, the fight gets a -lot- harder in one hell of a hurry and you're a lot less likely to have answers to the rest of the fight if you're not a well balanced warrior.Yes, the circumstances you seem to have assumed in your warblade example.


It's all down to system mastery and saavy play. Having relatively easier access to various tools that let you come at problems isn't the same as having exclusive access to them. Not much of what casters do to be "better" adventurers are things that can't be done by non-casters just a bit slower. Massive chunks of what's done through divination can be done with mundane legwork. Traveling the world and the planes just takes longer when you have to hoof it or buy/steal/rent a vehicle instead of teleporting or plane shifting. For the few things that can only be handled by magic (usually because they're magical obstacles) you've just got to shell out that fat wad of cash. Tools for dispelling, breaking wards, breaking curses, etc are all available without having to have a spell list.But it all comes down to basically the same thing as the previously mentioned prep thing; cost, time and flexibility. All these alternatives you mention are not just slightly more time-consuming and dependent on specifics than the corresponding spells.


If you're a bruiser, your whole job is to get to the other guy and bruise him. If you can't do that then you really don't need to be part of that particular adventure. The trick then, is actaully getting to him to do it.

If you know what you're facing, making target specific preparations is just an obvious thing to do.Sure, but the dragon remains more capable of being prepared enough, not to mention it likely doesn't even need to know the particulars of the warblade. For example, the metamagicked ray combo would be excellent offense also against a far more likely dangerous enemy of the dragon: another dragon.


This is predicated on the presumption that the dragon will -know- that a foe is inbound. You can't just handwaive that concern away. Reading the future with pinpoint accuracy for the purpose of acting on that reading is a logical paradox. It simply can't be done because of its self-defeating nature.Let's put it like this: do you find it likely that the warlord will know the dragon's exact whereabouts when entering its lair and before the dragon knows where the warlord is?

However much time the warlord has had to prepare for this fight, it'll be insignificant in comparison to the time a dragon more than 800 years old has had to prepare for anyone or anything out to steal its territory or treasure hoard. Whatever trick - magic or not - the warlord can think of you can be certain the dragon has contemplated far longer and more thoroughly.


No man or lizard is an island.No. But an 800 years old giant flying sorcerer lizard sure is quite a bit closer to being one than an 18th level warlord...


A talisman or crafted contingent spell with the infusion Armor Enhancemnt tuned to the baneblind quality is 350 or 700 gp, respectively. Upon activating the bane blind quality, I get one minute in which I'm completely imperceptible to the beast's natural senses.I'd be far more worried about getting past the dragon's supernatural "senses" (notably the magical "security and surveillance system" in its lair).


As for getting to within a minute of approaching, there are quite a few options. Invisibility and zone of silence are actually likely to do okay here, although invisibility is dicey with the dragon's spot check being as high as it is. Assuming I don't just pop in on him with a skull-talisman of teleport tuned to his lair.Now you're just trying to insult the CR 21 800 years old hyper-intelligent magic super-lizard island-wannabee! Unless you have a very generous GM who don't mind dispensing with even the most basic fictional verisimilitude, you do not simply poofaport into its lair. I think one can comfortably assume forbiddance and other permanent protections against any and all similar such common magic tricks.


Gonna have to really pony up for this one. Since it's hoard is worth more than half my WBL though, it's definitely well worth it to splurge a little, even if it means buying more task specific gear than would normally be appropriate.Heh, indeed. And yeah, the hoard sure is quite the adventurer-magnet. A fact which has probably made it grow considerably and kept the dragon well-fed...


True dragons were always meant to be boss encounters. They're notoriously "under CRed" according to the community.Yep, and they still are in PF.


That an optimized warblade -can- pose a threat to one that's supposed to be near the limit of a level 18 party's capability should be a damning indictment of the idea that warriors can't keep up at high level all by itself. I thought the question was whether they could keep up with casters?


Skull talisman or rune of friendly fire; just direct the rays elsewhere. 2800 or 1400 gp, respectively. If the dragon's inside that 30ft, send them back at him.Why skull talisman specifically? How does this protect you from eight rays? How can you ensure you'll have the standard action needed to activate this before the dragon casts the rays?


Arcane thesis applies to one spell, improved metamagic only reduces the overall spell level by 1 (nerfed in the transition between ELH and DMG)Aha. That was news to me.


and practical metamagic only applies to one metamagic.I can't remember it having ever been less restricted. Was there a more powerful earlier version?


For the dragon to put all its eggs in that one spellcasting basket seems like a bad idea to me but whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

In any case, that's 8 of your 12 feats down; twin, split ray, maximize, (undefined meta), imp metamagic, arcane thesis, and practical metamagic (twin or split), rapdid metamagic. Still feel like 12 is a lot?Assuming no rods:
1 Twin
2 split
3 maximize
4 imp meta
5 arcane thesis
6 practical meta
7 rapid meta
Why the "undefined meta"? And no, I don't believe this would necessarily be "putting all eggs in one spellcasting basket", nor do I understand how 12 feats could be seen as anything less than "a lot" in 3.5.


First thing that comes to my mind, honestly.Of course rods would've been the "first thing that comes to my mind" had I been creating a PC. I was assuming the dragon should be largely independent of its treasure.


Honestly, I could've sworn there was a limit of one metamagic for spontaneous application but I can't remember where the rule is.No worries, I was just surprised and started doubting my own memory.


Still can't do both unless you blow another feat on a second arcane thesis. If you're sticking with that change to ray of stupidity, any method of gaining immunity to mind-affecting in general or compulsion specifically kills its effect outright. Such as a tattoo of personal mindblank for 6600. The same article that makes high level tattoos possible (mind's eye: getting wired) also gives the means to make them permanent if you're psionic.Try it yourself instead. How would you make as certain as possible the dragon beats the warblade?


So you're just going nova on the first round of combat with a barage of rays (touch AC), that are enchantment (compulsion) effects (immunities), and allows spell resistance (race choice, magic items). Three ways to stop it and you expect a high level warrior to have -none- of them, even if he has time to prepare for the battle?Why would he have time to prepare anything but perhaps hours long buffs?


And? Full attacks do adequate damage here even before picking up a few boosts.Of course, I'm simply saying you can't expect to use the same opening as you did with the titan. And if you win initiative or are able to act at full capacity after the dragon's opening turn, why would you not win?


Pop in on a TP,Nope.


while imperceptable to the dragon,And undetected by "magic security systems"?


then drop a standard action strike, followed by 3 full attacks on the alpha-strike.Come on, you can't seriously think it would be that easy in a real game?


Yes, clearly there's no threat to the dragon here.In comparison to the titan? I'd definitely put my money on the dragon...


Seriously, I've burned, what, maybe 10k gold on expendables on a dragon hunt that's expected to grosse a quarter milllion? Nevermind really simple stuff like a couple runes to augment my weapon with dragonbane and dragondoom to grab an extra 6d6 on every hit for another 100gp.Why would you boost melee damage?


Goes both ways. Going first can certainly be important but it's not always the most important thing.See above about initiative.


There's always the nerveskitter, contingency, celerity combo if you feel like you absolutely -have- to go first. Foresight for an actual high level sorcerer makes that combo just plain unfair but you're a pretty good ways away from low-op by then too.Probably. Just like the warblade.


I mean, you're nearly there but for the spell selection and a couple of feats but I'm not going to demand you do it if you don't want to.I think you should try it yourself. I trust you have the intellectual honesty to do so to the very best of your ability. If you did, do you really think you'd come back still claiming the dragon's spells don't matter because they're easy to resist?




I wonder how many properly optimized non-casters you've seen then. Given that it's harder because of the more scatterd nature of non-caster options, it'd be no surprise if it's a substantially lower number.Well, does Nelly seem low-op to you? How 'bout this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21860394&postcount=240)? I've seen 3.5 builds at least as optimized in terms of how much system mastery, op-fu and time they've required (and I honestly doubt you'd be able to find more than a handful PF warrior builds as high-op as either of those two, even though they're deliberately held back and certainly don't represent the rather broken peak performance possible). But maybe that's still far away from what can be done in 3.5. You tell me.


I can only guess at PF having a lower optimization ceiling than 3e but the scuttlebut that I've heard is that it is. Don't know how much of a role that's playing here.For non-casters? If we're talking about the resulting power level here, then PF's op-level is considerably higher than 3.5's, and the scuttlebut you've heard don't know jack about PF beyond core (which is highly likely going by what I've heard from 3.5 players who believe they "know" PF). AFAIK, the only thing which can be optimized higher in 3.5 is overkill charge damage (and PF sure does still allow for way more than enough of that as well). As a comparison, I can't recall any 20th level 3.5 warrior builds even remotely capable of reliably taking out a CR 30 demon lord and three CR 25 balor lords in the first round. Or are you saying such builds are possible in 3.5? If so, that would be awesome, giving me a quite possibly superior alternative to PF!

[Lucas Yew]

A single base class with d12 HD, full level BAB, 8 skill points per level, all skills except Arcana and Spellcraft as class skills, proficient with simple/martial weapons and all armor and shields, before adding some non-bonus-feat plus actually unique class features, would be a minimum for a start. In essence, being the best with all things that are mostly numerical in value and/or anyone can actually attempt (= not spellcasting or supernatural mojo), would make a "mundane" class worth its salt inside a band of otherwise reality warpers.

Then, maybe giving the entirety of PF1's Automatic Bonus Progression as this hypothetical class' unique class feature, freeing it from WBL constraints from getting interesting magic items to patch up things like flight and plane shifting requirements instead of math-fixing Big 6 Gear would be nice... Or the Stamina (for Combat Feats) and Skill Unlocks. Actually, these seem better than ABP, thematically.