If you were to give Psychic Warrior one improvement would you rather...

[DEMON]

1. Give it full BAB?
2. Give it good Will save (in addition to good For save)?
3. Give it 4+INT skill points per level and add Listen, Spot, Intimidate and Sense Motive to the list of class skills?

This isn't a "what do you think is mechanically strongest" kind of question, but rather "what do you think is the most fitting of the three and why"?

[gkathellar]

Will save seems like a natural fit.

[Zaq]

What problem are you trying to solve? What are you comparing the class to and finding that it comes up deficient (but by a small enough degree that a little change like this will fix the issue)?

[tstewt1921]

Giving any partial BAB type class a full BAB is generally the strongest option, I'm not familiar with the Psychic Warrior spell choices, but giving full BAB to a gish style class seems like a solid fit.

[DEMON]

What problem are you trying to solve? What are you comparing the class to and finding that it comes up deficient (but by a small enough degree that a little change like this will fix the issue)?

I'm not necessarily solving a problem, I'm looking at some classes and thinking what minor tweaks they might use, now that we know what the devs didn't know back in the day (e.g. that full BAB, or 2 good saves don't really make up for the lack of really powerful class features and can't carry a class on their own).

Though if you want a close comparison to a "later day" class I'm looking at, a Duskblade would be a reasonable comparison.

But, again, I'm not really fixing a problem, rather than experiencing a few players being dissuaded from trying out the PsyWar because they felt the class was lacking something and just a bit shy from being what they wanted it to be...

[Venger]

more powers, more power points, powers known up to 9

[Ramza00]

Kalashtar Power Link Shards. Not for the boosting psionic manifester level over your HD [which is obscene and really should not be allowed more than HD+2], but merely getting 120 power points for 20 hitpoints is a good trade. Being a d6 character + con instead of a d8 character is worth it.

Note the dreamscarred press version of psychic warrior made them 4+ instead of 2+, gave them pseudo full bab, and a certain path give them a boost to will saves plus mettle if you are willing to use your immediate action when making that will save.

-----

Sidenote there is a 2nd level psionic power called Psychic Bodyguard which is not on the Psychic Warrior list, but if you can get an ally to cast it on your or a psionic item made out of it you get something kind of like shared pain but for will saves. Your ally makes the will saves for you instead of you. If your ally fails the will save they are stunned and you still suffer the negative effect. Yes this stinks, but it is an awesome psionic item to have if you have a cleric in your part for they have awesome will, awesome wisdom, and they can boost their saves even higher due to their cleric spells, things the cleric was going to do anyway due to fort and reflex stuff so using their obscene will save to protect you from your bad things is like double dipping.

[DEMON]

more powers, more power points, powers known up to 9

None of that was on the table. L
et's not turn everything into a T1 class... :smallmad:

[EisenKreutzer]

more powers, more power points, powers known up to 9

I have trouble seeing why the psywar should be turned into a full 9th level manifester. It would be a complete break from the niche of the class, and fly in the face of all other dedicated gish classes.

[Crichton]

Honestly, giving them all 3 of your suggestions make sense, thematically, and wouldn't result in any kind of 'overpowered-ness' at all, really.
If you're adding class skills, I'd advocate for UPD as well. Just makes sense. Really, I don't see how it makes sense for any caster/manifester to be intimately familiar with how magic/psionics functions, use it every day, and then struggle harder than any mundane class to figure out a wand/dorje/etc. All casters/manifesters should have UMD/UPD as class skills, in my opinion.

I don't think I'd go as far as Venger and suggest full 9ths, but more power points and powers known, both with just a modest boost, wouldn't overpower them either, frankly. Unlike your comparison class of Duskblade, the Psywar doesn't actually get any class features, just a pile of bonus feats. Making them slightly more versatile and long lasting in the Psychic part of their Psychic Warrior-ness just seems fair.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The skill points are a quality-of-life upgrade, and I would definitely add them to the psywar.

The base attack is a straight power upgrade, which the psywar arguably doesn't really need (but then, the psywar isn't so powerful that full base attack would somehow break things). It's a very good pick, but I would rather see some additional class features (like the psywar ACFs mixed in with the usual bonus feats) or even more skill points.

The good Will save makes thematic sense, but doesn't have the quality-of-life or power impact of the other two, in my opinion.

[Fizban]

Will save.

-Full BAB on 6th level manifesting is not appropriate- even Duskblade's full/5th is pushing it and only gets away by being such a restricted list, but PsyWar can get any power with a feat in addition to a ton of stuff Duskblade just doesn't have, and cast in full armor. If you think Duskblades are fine or underpowered, then go ahead and buff both.

-Boosting skill points is again not appropriate- giving everyone more skill points actually makes the skill system worse, in my estimation, because instead of dealing with the fact that the game doesn't actually support skill challenge as a thing for all characters, you make all characters expected to have all the best skills or else suffer massive personal or party failures. Hey look, PsyWar just "gained" two skill points, and is now expected to have 2-4 of these power skills that were just granted to it- so at best you've broke even but have to roll more skill checks. . . which means keeping those skills magically boosted to meet the DM's apparent skill check expectations, so actually you're still not breaking even.

-Will save would bring PsyWar into line with the Bard: same BAB, similar spellcasting, same double good saves. To which you might respond that Bards have 6 skill points- but Bards are expected to have at least one Perform, are restricted to light armor, have a (slightly but still significant) smaller hit die, and have a slow buffing ability instead of immediate combat bonus feats. Having 3/4 BAB and magic implies double good save to me, but that's about it.


This isn't a "what do you think is mechanically strongest" kind of question, but rather "what do you think is the most fitting of the three and why"?

I'm looking at some classes and thinking what minor tweaks they might use, now that we know what the devs didn't know back in the day (e.g. that full BAB, or 2 good saves don't really make up for the lack of really powerful class features and can't carry a class on their own). . .
But, again, I'm not really fixing a problem, rather than experiencing a few players being dissuaded from trying out the PsyWar because they felt the class was lacking something and just a bit shy from being what they wanted it to be...
These two statements seem at odds. You clearly believe that there are problems with mechanical strength in some things that lack full BAB, and that this was a mistake on the dev's part. And you bring it up in context of players not wanting to try the class because it feels lacking, when let's be honest, the most likely thing they're going to feel it's lacking is BAB. PsyWar is not an easy-bake melee class, it's never going to look good until you see someone using it effectively. But it does have clear and easy to use abilities once you actually start building one, as well as entries in the char-op canon.


So the main thing to do to make the class more attractive is show people what it can do. Vigor, Expansion, Biofeedback, Claws of the Beast, Call Weaponry, Detect Hostile Intent, Dimension Swap, Hustle, and that's just a sampling of the 1st and 2nd level powers. Psionic Weapon and Deep Impact feats. Crystal weapons also shouldn't be forgotten. Just like any spellcaster, it's not about what's on the class table, it's about the character.

If you really need something Unique, take a look at Soulbound Weapon (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a) from the Mind's Eye series of ACF articles. Upgrades Call Weaponry from its original combination get weapon+enhance weapon, to a combination free enhancement scaling and added special effects. Enough to make the Soulknife weep (though if you ask what the Soulknife needs I'll still tell you it's not full BAB, same as the Monk).

[pabelfly]

I think the Psychic Warrior is a pretty solid class as-is and see no reason to fix it. You have a variety of good build options for the class, WIS manifesting gives you a better Will save than initially appears, several options for swift-action movement so you can do full attacks, and the Slayer PrC is easy to qualify for if you you want to get over 16BAB. Tier 3 is a pretty reasonable power level.

If your players aren't quite digging it, see why they're not interested before trying to change it.

[AnimeTheCat]

So, I know it's not on the table, but my change would be more in the direction of overhauling their powers to make the list more broad utility with action friendly casting times. Kind of make the powers operate like maneuvers with the casting times being "as a part of a standard action", "as a part of a full round action", "as a part of a skill check" kind of thing. Then I would give them class features that let them do more with those powers, or more with their skills. Maybe let them use wisdom to determine bonus skill points for psychic warrior class levels or let them use wisdom in place of intelligence or charisma on selected skills. I think that would better suit the class than any of the changes above, but more intensive.

From your options, probably improved will save.

[Andor13]

I'd give the, the Will save and the skill points. That's probably enough though. They are strong enough without full BAB, unlike the poor, wretched Soulknife. (See PF Soulknife to see what that class needs for redemption.)

[heavyfuel]

more powers, more power points, powers known up to 9

I think this would be good if we then give the class slight nerfs in other areas. For example, reduce its HD to a d4 and take away 3/4 BAB for 1/2. Now, if the class is still too strong, removing some proficiencies (martial weapons, armors, and shield) might be interesting. Now this is probably too big of a nerf, so swap the good Fort save for a good Will save, since those are generally more dangerous to fail, and maybe give them Int as their manifesting stats to help with skill points. Lastly, just remove "ychic Warrior" from the name and add "ion" for good measure

[Troacctid]

None of these would make me want to play a psychic warrior. You could give it all three and I still probably wouldn't take it over a warblade, crusader, or duskblade. However, of the three, the full BAB comes closest.

If you give the psychic warrior full BAB, I do suggest doing the same for the lurk. They're balanced against one another.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The psychic warrior is damn good as-is. Whoever it is at your table that says they're missing something has clearly never played one.

If you must, go with the minimal change; the good will save.

If you're really that bothered about it though, you can get most of the same power from a quick dip in fist of zuoken and running its progression out on the slayer; 5th level psychic warrior powers (though fewer of them), some actual class features, 4 skill points per level and it's only half your build. Mix liberally with a martial adept and kick more ass than anyone has any business kicking.

[Dimers]

If someone's finding something missing with the psywar, giving it more passive abilities is less likely to help. Sensory skills and Will save are both passive. BAB is active; the player rolls it when declaring an action. So I think that's the most likely to improve satisfaction. I think Will is a better fit for the concept, and I think nearly every class should get more skill points and more class skills. (Like, how can a whole category of people be bad at all forms of social interaction and all forms of knowledge? C'mon.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

(Like, how can a whole category of people be bad at all forms of social interaction and all forms of knowledge? C'mon.)

Um... ever been to a bar on a friday night as a DD? :smallconfused: Most people are bad at social interaction and know a lot less than they think. I'm pretty sure that's why alcohol was invented, else we'd have died off as a species millenia ago.

Seriously though, social-awkwardness is as old as society and D&D is supposed to be in a pseudo-medieval level of social and technological advancement. Most people are going to know very little outside of how to survive with their trade, likely learned from her immediate family or a master artisan or tradesman.

I'd be more surprised if most characters -did- have one or the other, much less both.

The people who risk their lives by spending their days plumbing dungeons and raiding savage race settlements and facing down demons, devils, and other horrors most men will never see much less deal with in an up-close-and-personal way haven't really got a huge need to be eloquent, beguiling wordsmiths and, as I discussed above, having advanced knowledge of any kind is atypical in a typical setting. It's honestly a little weird that PCs are, generally, literate when most of the rest of the world isn't.

Being particularly adept at speaking is a special skill even in the modern world IRL. Being so skilled at it that you can beguile most people with a few moments of interaction (mid-level, moderately optimized bonuses to the social skills) really shouldn't be all that common.

[Fizban]

It's honestly a little weird that PCs are, generally, literate when most of the rest of the world isn't.
Got a source? I don't know of anything that says NPCs behave differently than PCs for this, and IIRC both Forgotten Realms and Eberron make it explicit that everybody is literate unless otherwise stated, in spite of faux-medievalness.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Isn't standard D&D (like, not-Eberron) more classical Greek than actual medieval Europe?

[noce]

Psywar is arguably better in combat than out of combat.
You listed two mechanical improvements and a quality of life improvement.
I'd give it skills and skillpoints, these make you feel contributing more often, while not increasing your power by much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Got a source? I don't know of anything that says NPCs behave differently than PCs for this, and IIRC both Forgotten Realms and Eberron make it explicit that everybody is literate unless otherwise stated, in spite of faux-medievalness.

To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I read that members of the NPC classes (other than aristocrat) were generally illiterate. I'd have sworn up and down it was in the DMG but I can't find it now. Best I can do at the moment is ask how you justify the existence of scribes in a world where nearly everyone can read and write?

[Fizban]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I read that members of the NPC classes (other than aristocrat) were generally illiterate. I'd have sworn up and down it was in the DMG but I can't find it now. Best I can do at the moment is ask how you justify the existence of scribes in a world where nearly everyone can read and write?
Degrees. Much like in real life, just because everyone can read and write, doesn't mean they can read and write good. With no official printing presses or typewriters, someone's gotta make the official records look nice, and the archetypal snooty do-nothing noble won't be doing it.

Edit: Aha! Found one mention. DMG2, describing the faux-medieval standard dnd setting, in a sidebar regarding the reactions of villagers to adventurers it suggests a letter of safe passage from the lord, "The peasants won't be literate, but. . ."

[Psyren]

I'm not necessarily solving a problem, I'm looking at some classes and thinking what minor tweaks they might use, now that we know what the devs didn't know back in the day (e.g. that full BAB, or 2 good saves don't really make up for the lack of really powerful class features and can't carry a class on their own).

Though if you want a close comparison to a "later day" class I'm looking at, a Duskblade would be a reasonable comparison.

But, again, I'm not really fixing a problem, rather than experiencing a few players being dissuaded from trying out the PsyWar because they felt the class was lacking something and just a bit shy from being what they wanted it to be...

1) Regardless of what the devs knew or didn't know in early 3.5, they actually nailed it with the Psywar and it is solidly T3 already. There's no reason to "fix" any of the things you listed.

2) A Psywar can mop the floor with a Duskblade even before Expanded Knowledge or Psychic Reformation.

3) I would suggest to whichever players are reluctant to try a psychic warrior to simply go for it. Buffing a solid class before they've even played it seems like putting the cart before the horse.

The only real "buffs" I would give the Psywar are the ones Pathfinder did (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/psychic-warrior/) - actual class features to go with the feats and manifesting - but those were because every class in PF got those, a Duskblade would be similarly buffed if brought over too.

[DEMON]

Thanks to most of you folks for the responses, an interesting food for thought.


1) Regardless of what the devs knew or didn't know in early 3.5, they actually nailed it with the Psywar and it is solidly T3 already. There's no reason to "fix" any of the things you listed.

Fair enough, you might very well be right.
That being said, since you have mentied the tiers, do you believe that introducing any, or even all of the suggested boosts would affect the class' tier in any way?
Even if not, how much do you think it would affect its place in T3 to which it already belongs?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thanks to most of you folks for the responses, an interesting food for thought.



Fair enough, you might very well be right.
That being said, since you have mentied the tiers, do you believe that introducing any, or even all of the suggested boosts would affect the class' tier in any way?
Even if not, how much do you think it would affect its place in T3 to which it already belongs?

Not really. The gap between t2 and t3 is almost entirely a function of a class' spell list.To bridge that gap with psywar, you'd have to either give it higher level powers or dramatically expand its list by moving higher level powers down or converting a bunch of spells.

It'd definitely surge to the top of T3, if it's not already there, from the BAB change though. If it's already top dog for T3, though bard and beguiler are both strong contenders, then giving it full BAB just opens the gap between it and number 2.

Seriously, it doesn't need to change at all. It's a powerful, versatile class with a decent floor and a -high- ceiling.

[Ramza00]

All 3 of your suggestions will not change the Psychic Warrior's tier. It can do one or two things very well but it can not do lots of things well due to a limit with powers known and power points per day.

Even with efficent power points usage many psychic warrior powers are you still have limits. You smash things and have limited versatility besides smashing things 3 or so ways.

More Skillpoints will not change this, having full bab will not change this, having a will save 2 to 6 higher and thus you have a 10 to 30% better chance of making a will save due to the d20 will not change this.

-----

Increasimg the psychic warrior tier to tier 2 would require the pathfinder mind stones and greater mind stones thereby magic items that give you more powers known. They are cheap for lvl 1 and 2 powers expensive for level 3 and above powers.

That and more power points per day such as power link shards for kalashtar.

Even with the versatility increase of these two techniques you are not more powerful for tier 2 and tier 3 can have similar power outputs. Instead you are more versatile able to handle a greater amount of encounters your DM to throw at you without using your allies to grant you a specialized buff to activate your raw potential.

Tier 2 vs 3 is not about more power but having more tools in your toolbox.

[Troacctid]

Tier 2 vs 3 is not about more power but having more tools in your toolbox.
It's definitely more about power. Unless you want to rank the bard above the sorcerer.

[Ramza00]

It's definitely more about power. Unless you want to rank the bard above the sorcerer.

Tier 3 is

very good at solving a couple of problems and
competent at solving a few more.
Tier 1 is

Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems.
Tier 2 is the "liminal space" between these two space. Tier 3 vs Tier 2 vs Tier 1 can be just as effective at doing things in combat or out of combat, but Tier 2 has more tools to play with compared to Tier 3, and Tier 1 has more tools to play with compared to Tier 1.

I think the community definition of the liminal space of
Tier 2 was agreed to be.

A)Incredibly good at solving most problems.
OR
B)Very good at solving nearly all problems.


-----

As for Bard vs Sorcerer, well it depends on how you build them and whether you consider Sorcerer a Tier 2 all the time vs a Tier 3 some of the time in my opinion. [The community thinks Sorcerer is Tier 2.]

A sorcerer at level 10 knows 15 Spells Known = 5+4+3+2+1 before any feats, substitutions, and so on. [I am not counting cantrips.]
A bard at level 10 knows 14 Spells Known= 4+4+4+2 but also gets a good reflex save, 4 additional skill points per level, 10 uses of Bardic Music Per Day (Inspire Courage +2, Inspire Competence, Inspire Greatness, Suggestion, Counter Song, Fascinate), and Bardic Knowledge.

Generally in the hands of a inexperienced player Sorcerer is a higher tier for 5th level spells is better than 4th level spells, but Bard can easily match them and this is not counting prestige classes from level 5 to 10. As for after level 10, I consider Sublime Chord to be a "retcon" progression for Bard after level 10. [Yes this can be consider Headcanon and I do not care, I have never been in a group who hasn't considered Sublime Chord to not be an option.]

-----

So back to Sorcerer vs Bard and whether Sorcerer is always Tier 2 and Bard is always Tier 3. Well I guess that it boils down to which definition of the community are you using for Tier 2. Is it A definition or B definition.

For I can make Bards that are just as versatile as Sorcerers at that level if not more so. But Sorcerers are just a little more punchy with 5th level spells vs 4th level spells even if Bards can get some Sorcerer 5th level spells as 4th level and so on.

[PS. I am not a fan of Sorcerers, I like playing traditional 9th casters, and I like playing Bards but the trade offs of Sorcerers just does not feel right. I rather play a Psion or something. Now Sorcerers is good NPCs for DMs but for players I just do not like them.]

[Mordaedil]

Generally I am more in favor of giving them the full BAB, since I've considered using it to replace a frontliner and to bring it up to speed with duskblade. Really though, it depends on the table and for the most part leaving the class as-is should be fine.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I've never had a character that I felt could be modeled properly with the number of skill points they had, even with the Int-based factotum/totemist/swordsage // shaper/constructor build I favor. I like characters that come across as competent and well-learned, and skill points just don't stretch anywhere near far enough, even when you only add a few to most skills and round the rest out with bonuses.

More skill points, I say.

[daremetoidareyo]

As DM, I increase every base class to have 2 more skill points than listed

[JMS]

One posible change is to give it some extra PP, mirroring the Duskblade’s massive number of slots. Grod’s Giants and Graveyards fix gave it... 1.5 times as many PP? I think?

[Ramza00]

Forgot to mention Form Astral Armor from Dreamscarred Press (the 3rd party pathfinder psionic rules) is a wonderful level 3 psionic power for psychic warriors. For 5 pp and a full round manifesting you get the aegis astral suit class feature for 1 min per manfiester level. Your aegis level is equal to your manifester level and you get 5 aegis customization points for those 5 power points, plus an additional customization point for every 2 pp you spend.

This is ultimate versatility in the can making you a tier 2 psychic warrior instead of tier 3. Need path of war manuevers now you got them, need energy resist got it, need flight check, need evasion or stalwart / mettle double check, need damage boost or damage reduction, breaking this 1 power gives it. It gives everything the downsides is the fullround casting instead of standard and other abilities that the aegis replicates may occur faster if you did it via another power known. For example expansion with the aegis suit requires ML of 9 and not ML of 1 with expansion. Regardless this Form Astral Armor makes you tier 2 by itself for you have versatility in a can even if it is not the best form of versatility possible.

Now Psions and Wilders can not grab this power with a power known but that is what expanded knowledge at Character Level 7± is for. Also greater mind stones at 36k (18k crafted) may be expensive but it is still worth it for versatility. Hell spending a little more than 10k for a psionic wand for 50 times to do this (a little more than 5k if you craft it 3x5x375) is a little more than 100 gp a pop crafted for backup of the worse kind when you need to solve a problem...well her comes temporary iron man to give you the superpower you or an ally needs for 5 mins.

[martixy]

Isn't standard D&D (like, not-Eberron) more classical Greek than actual medieval Europe?

Absolutely. More Hercules and Odysseys, monsters and meddling gods and less crusades and inquisitions.

[Fizban]

Missed this one-

Isn't standard D&D (like, not-Eberron) more classical Greek than actual medieval Europe?
The DMG definitely thinks it's medieval (Europe). DMG2 continues, but then after making a big deal about Monarchy says that basically everything is controlled by guilds, which is more of a late medieval thing (if I had to guess). I'm fairly certain Forgotten Realms if it describes itself anywhere probably does so from a starting point of medieval Europe.

IIRC, Frank and K in their suggestion of what the mechanics of 3.5 should actually mean for worldbuilding, said it should be Iron Age- where heroes are respected not because they're "Good," but because they're powerful and power=good, which is indeed the classical Greek Achilles etc. But that's internet analysis.

[Ramza00]

IIRC, Frank and K in their suggestion of what the mechanics of 3.5 should actually mean for worldbuilding, said it should be Iron Age- where heroes are respected not because they're "Good," but because they're powerful and power=good, which is indeed the classical Greek Achilles etc. But that's internet analysis.

Nods, though lets rephrase this.

Greek Myth is 1200 BC and prior aka Bronze Age.
Greek Society that we know of is always Iron Age, and poets like Homer and Hesiod who told Greek Myths were all 900 BC to 300 BC (when the Greek Society became the more blended mediterranean known as the Hellenistic Age with Alexander the Great and so on. Hellenistic being the greek word for someone "who speaks the Greek Language.) Put another way Greek Myth was not the stories of the literal 3200 and older Greek Cultures but mythical fantasy that was not anywhere historically accurate told 400 to 1000 years later.

I bring this up for 3.5 and many other world building is blending Iron Age stuff culture wise with Bronze Age mythical heroics, but with some "Mediterranean / Renaissance" external paints. It is a hodgepodge of styles, and having a world building that is a hodgepodge of styles is not wrong.

But this also applies to things like Greek Myths. The Greek Myths are not accurately depicting Bronze Age culture and society but instead some form of blend that is a mixture of Nostalgia and the setting it consisted of in the [I]then-modern period of the Iron Age 2800 years ago.

[daremetoidareyo]

Nods, though lets rephrase this.

Greek Myth is 1200 BC and prior aka Bronze Age.
Greek Society that we know of is always Iron Age, and poets like Homer and Hesiod who told Greek Myths were all 900 BC to 300 BC (when the Greek Society became the more blended mediterranean known as the Hellenistic Age with Alexander the Great and so on. Hellenistic being the greek word for someone "who speaks the Greek Language.) Put another way Greek Myth was not the stories of the literal 3200 and older Greek Cultures but mythical fantasy that was not anywhere historically accurate told 400 to 1000 years later.

I bring this up for 3.5 and many other world building is blending Iron Age stuff culture wise with Bronze Age mythical heroics, but with some "Mediterranean / Renaissance" external paints. It is a hodgepodge of styles, and having a world building that is a hodgepodge of styles is not wrong.

But this also applies to things like Greek Myths. The Greek Myths are not accurately depicting Bronze Age culture and society but instead some form of blend that is a mixture of Nostalgia and the setting it consisted of in the [I]then-modern period of the Iron Age 2800 years ago.

Off chance that you might know, is there any iron age fiction to contextualize the culture further?

[Ramza00]

Off chance that you might know, is there any iron age fiction to contextualize the culture further?

Not good stuff. Lots of boring archaeological things we consider accurate, and lots of self serving myth, history, stories, and so on.

This is because most people when they consider the Iron Age they are talking roughly 1200 BC to 550 BC, but sometimes other years like 1250 to 550 BC and so on.

-----

What changed in 550 BC? It was a change in technology, or market economies, or a new empire. It was instead Herodotus a Greek Historian who wrote his "Histories" which was one of the first "critical" histories, but also trying to be accurate to its own understanding and yadda, yadda, yadda. Except we should not put this all on Herodotus for there were also other contemporaries at the time time doing similar things, and also cross cultures with China and so on.

And of course the historical accuracy of Herodotus' "Histories" is something you can challenge, including the artificial distinctions of this culture good or this culture bad due to slavery (when they both practiced slavery.) But yeah I am dropping the details and pretty much this subject entirely due to this forum's rules.

Now other cultures have a different "end" of their iron age not necessarily their tech was better, it is was just that land area, and those cultural people started generating rich written word histories that people thousands of years later can study and say oh suddenly I have a rich "tradition" and it is less speculation of what was happening based off things like archaeology.

In sum saying something was pre-history (and with eras of pre-history such as stone age, bronze age, iron age) and suddenly we no longer call it the pre-history-iron age and now we got "history" are artificial lines taught in school by people who were suddenly interested in history in the last few hundreds of years due to other forces like The Printing Press, the Rise of Nations, and so on.

-----

That said our understanding of The Bronze Age and The Stone Age is much more fragmentary than the Iron Age. This is because most of the languages of The Bronze Age collapse of empires were not the same languages of the later The Iron Age, so while we have all those "relics" of the past and lots of writting we barely understood what was written for those Bronze Age cultures where writting was used in lots of places for lots of purposes, but we can't read Greek Bronze Age script and so on.

Yet we can read some Egyptian Hieroglyphs due to The Rosetta Stone (an artifact from 196 BC, aka a 1000 years after the bronze age, but it did have a translation key for 3 languages two forms of Egyptian (hieroglyphic and demotic scripts) and one Ancient Greek. Likewise we have similar cyphers for some forms of Cuneiform but once again our written history understanding of the bronze age and earlier is still fragmentary. Our sense of knowledge comes from other historical artifacts not just writting.

[Fizban]

Nods, though lets rephrase this. [I am agreeing mostly.]
I deliberately avoided making any claims as to what the Iron Age was myself other than Achellis as popular example, specifically because I know I don't know squat and didn't want to look dumb :smallbiggrin: Glad someone with the know showed up.

Put another way Greek Myth was not the stories of the literal 3200 and older Greek Cultures but mythical fantasy that was not anywhere historically accurate told 400 to 1000 years later.
Fantasies of fantasies of fantasies *Inception bwong*