Best Reasons NOT to Gish

[quetzalcoatl5]

So I was thinking about how easy it is in 3.5 to add spellcasting to a build. There are so many prestige classes that can add ok to decent spellcasting with minimal loss of martial capabilities or continue a progression from a dip, so one could easily turn any fighter into a divine, arcane, or psionic gish. Fighter 4/Knight of the Weave 4/ Spellsword 1/ Abjurant Champion 5 is a pretty sturdy character. Hell, with classes like Divine Crusader and something like Knight of the Raven, you could be BAB 19 and have a limited list of 9th level spells right alongside your Wizards and Clerics. While you don't match a full caster in this, it helps keep a character from falling victim too much to the martial caster divide.

So my question is: when is it beneficial NOT to take levels in a spellcasting (or equivalent system) class?

I mean, outside of Initiators, of course.

Bear Warrior Barbarians come to mind. So do Daring Outlaw Swashbuckler builds. What have you all got?

[pabelfly]

Purely martial characters are great if the character you want to play as doesn't cast magic, and when you don't want the added complexity of casting in a build. Some people aren't good with the complexity of a spellcaster but are just fine if you give them, say, a Barbarian with Pounce.

The martial/caster divide is only really relevant in PvP, or the martial can't buy what they need to keep up (whether it's because of limited shops or limited money). If you just have a variety of encounters against a variety of enemies, roughly average wealth by level and decent item selection, a decently-built mundane martial will contribute just fine.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Story reasons? Your character hates magic and refuses to use it. A very poor survival strategy that ensures that you will receive your Darwin Award quickly.

Maybe there's not enough room in your build, or the campaign is VERY low op, or you are really good at optimizing and want to nerf yourself into oblivion. Maybe you can work your way around not having casting using skills, magic items, and alchemical items. Probably not a great idea, even so, but...

Or maybe the DM actively punishes casters, such as stacking taint and insanity whenever you cast a spell.

Otherwise, if your mental stats are very low, and spellcasting just won't work for you. You still will use magic items, but spellcasting is simply a no-go.

Beyond that, there's not much reason not to. Spellcasting will always make you more capable, even if it's really crappy spellcasting, like the healer. Under normal conditions, any adventurer with even a lick of sense will get as much magic as they can as soon as possible. Magic is easily the most powerful thing in any setting, and getting more of it will make survival much easier. And forgoing it will do the opposite.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Wild Shape Ranger/ Master of Many Forms/ Warshaper does pretty well without spellcasting. You may as well keep your 1st level Ranger spells for casting Rhino's Rush and maybe a daily Endure Elements, even use 1st level pearls of power for more of the former.

[holbita]

This is so build dependant. On a non planned build then yes... it's difficult to beat some of the gish classes, but if you are doing a planned one? a lot of times that would mean 10 level prc + 5 levels of prereqs, none of those having casting, that you are going to want to have as soon as possible. And then you come at the last 5 levels and you have to weight something as simple as fighter for more feats to improve your stick, or going for level 1 spells at 16+? probably reducing BAB and hit points? yeah... no point in doing so.

So basically, any cool prc that you want to build towards that doesn't have spells is going to be a very good reason to not go gish.

[lylsyly]

Caster caster, always the same argument. When the real decision point is what type of table your playing at allowed sources, ect . I'm in the process of putting together another build I've used many times
We always play gestalt. So even generalist wizard 20 /// Duskblade 13 / swiftblade 7 is a seriously fun build to play. But guess what! Even just Duskblade 13 / swiftblade 7 can rock

[Doctor Despair]

Wild Shape Ranger/ Master of Many Forms/ Warshaper does pretty well without spellcasting. You may as well keep your 1st level Ranger spells for casting Rhino's Rush and maybe a daily Endure Elements, even use 1st level pearls of power for more of the former.

I'm not sure a limited number of 1st-level ranger slots are worth more than the free fighter feat you can get from Champion of the Wild.

[holbita]

I'm not sure a limited number of 1st-level ranger slots are worth more than the free fighter feat you can get from Champion of the Wild.

For sure the spellslots you get are NOT worth it in comparison... access to spell list for trigger items... that's when the decision becomes difficult.

[Inevitability]

Sometimes you want higher-level features of a class that doesn't grant casting - isn't that reason enough?

An Iaijutsu Focus build gets a lot from the higher levels of iaijutsu master. A war hulk will probably like war hulk more than whatever gish class can even be entered without mental skills. A crimson scourge is probably planning to do something with the nonlethal damage immunity, but that requires staying in for eight levels.

[Zancloufer]

Tome of Battle? Crusader or Warblade 20 is a pretty solid build on it's own, let alone mixing and matching the ToB (prestige) classes. Might be some niche value in a Rouge or similar skill monkey as well. Beyond that? Probably not much. Maybe a straight Fighter or Barbarian would be nice and simple to play, but on the flip side they are so easier to screw up than most Divine casters or ToB characters.

There are obviously story/RP/setting reasons as well, but that is way to setting/player dependent for an objective discussion on.

[quetzalcoatl5]

Thanks to Biffoniacus_Furiou for engaging with the thesis here. I almost mentioned that build in my examples!

Like, I tagged this Optimization for a reason... I'm asking for fun builds that avoid casting. Obviously there are roleplaying reasons or poor dice rolls or a desire NOT to be optimized, but I was explicitly looking for good options for non-caster builds. And I would categorize "good" here as "fun to play and contributes to the party"

For example, in a 5e game I'm playing, I deliberately wanted to avoid any casting and built a charisma heavy dex rogue/fighter build. It ended up going mostly fighter, but it could have gone either way almost every level up because there are no bad fighter/rogue multiclass splits in that edition and every level brought some fun thing to my character.

A champion of the forest wildshape ranger swift hunter build with a lion totem barbarian dip so you can pounce with a bear and do a ton of extra damage is fun! See?

What are fun builds that are purely martial?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Thanks to Biffoniacus_Furiou for engaging with the thesis here. I almost mentioned that build in my examples!

Like, I tagged this Optimization for a reason... I'm asking for fun builds that avoid casting. Obviously there are roleplaying reasons or poor dice rolls or a desire NOT to be optimized, but I was explicitly looking for good options for non-caster builds. And I would categorize "good" here as "fun to play and contributes to the party"

For example, in a 5e game I'm playing, I deliberately wanted to avoid any casting and built a charisma heavy dex rogue/fighter build. It ended up going mostly fighter, but it could have gone either way almost every level up because there are no bad fighter/rogue multiclass splits in that edition and every level brought some fun thing to my character.

A champion of the forest wildshape ranger swift hunter build with a lion totem barbarian dip so you can pounce with a bear and do a ton of extra damage is fun! See?

What are fun builds that are purely martial?Abuse the heck out of monk? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?285801-Tippy-s-Terrifically-Terrible-Trial/page25&p=15474863#post15474863)

[quetzalcoatl5]

I love this!

[pabelfly]

What are fun builds that are purely martial?

Swift Hunter build is pretty fun. Ranger can go full mundane with Champion of the Wild to get some extra feats, you have plenty of skill points to play with, and skirmish does pretty good. This can work either for a volley archer or a TWF/MWF build, but the latter will want a level of Barbarian for Pounce.

A high-STR volley archer is also really enjoyable. Find some high STR sources for cheap (eg. Half Minotaur template, Lolth-Touched, etc), and use a class that gives bonus feats like Fighter or Ranger. Ranger has more skill points, but Fighter has better accuracy, damage, and higher armor types, so it depends what you want to do, but both are good options.

Lastly, Barbarian 1 + Fighter X is really solid. The main issue is the lack of skill points, but you can go with either Golarion Fighter or Thug Fighter to get up to 4 + INT skill points with your Fighter side. Fighter gives you plenty of feats to sort out combat, so you can use your regular feats for stuff you might not normally have the feats to do.

[Anthrowhale]

Fighter 4/Knight of the Weave 4/ Spellsword 1/ Abjurant Champion 5
KotW requires BAB+5 to enter.

Mechanically, I agree that a spellcaster-based approach is typically superior. For example, a persistomancer cleric is approximately equivalent to a fighter at level 1 and has pulled ahead by level 5.

[Maat Mons]

I consider pure martials to be appealing in an e6 environment. Notably, Shock Trooper requires base attack bonus +6, which in e6 requires taking only full base attack bonus classes.

[quetzalcoatl5]

KotW requires BAB+5 to enter.



Ah! Typo on my part but thanks for catching it.

[Gnaeus]

Purely martial characters are great if the character you want to play as doesn't cast magic, and when you don't want the added complexity of casting in a build. Some people aren't good with the complexity of a spellcaster but are just fine if you give them, say, a Barbarian with Pounce.


This is the only correct answer. Mechanically, a huge majority of martials will benefit from dipping a level of cleric or similar, and 100% of martials can be outcompeted in terms of total contribution by a tier 1. Honestly, a vast majority of martials can be outcompeted in terms of martial ability by a tier 1's minions. Its a casters game, and where better is defined as more effective, casters are better. If better includes Simpler, or better suited to X concept, or faster to play, or better balanced to an AP, or you start with a range of nerfs of the strongest abilities, martials can compete. But I doubt you can find a fighter 20 build in the game that wouldn't be mechanically stronger as a fighter 19/cleric 1. And I'm sure you can't find one better than CoD 20 at equivalent optimization. Even if somehow the martial is as good as a Solar, you can gate in a second Solar.

The closest thing to an exception is WS Ranger. But 1. I don't actually consider that a martial build, any more than a warlock is. It is a caster with a variant magic mechanic. and 2. Its still worse at its schtick than a Druid (at comparable levels of opti-fu or guide reading).

[AMFV]

So I was thinking about how easy it is in 3.5 to add spellcasting to a build. There are so many prestige classes that can add ok to decent spellcasting with minimal loss of martial capabilities or continue a progression from a dip, so one could easily turn any fighter into a divine, arcane, or psionic gish. Fighter 4/Knight of the Weave 4/ Spellsword 1/ Abjurant Champion 5 is a pretty sturdy character. Hell, with classes like Divine Crusader and something like Knight of the Raven, you could be BAB 19 and have a limited list of 9th level spells right alongside your Wizards and Clerics. While you don't match a full caster in this, it helps keep a character from falling victim too much to the martial caster divide.

So my question is: when is it beneficial NOT to take levels in a spellcasting (or equivalent system) class?

I mean, outside of Initiators, of course.

Bear Warrior Barbarians come to mind. So do Daring Outlaw Swashbuckler builds. What have you all got?

Well I mean the main reason why you wouldn't want to add a complex subsystem to your build is that you don't actually want a complex subsystem in play. Spellcasting, particularly Vancian casting is a pretty complex system. So I could see choosing not to add that for that reason. I could also see doing it as a challenge, you want to keep your character in an environment where it's easier. It's also worth noting that a lot of the necessary parts of magic can be covered by party members or magic items. That's why the Necessary Items List has things like "Flight" on it, so you should be able to manage that.

Personally I think the best answer is to be some form of initiator.

[pabelfly]

Well I mean the main reason why you wouldn't want to add a complex subsystem to your build is that you don't actually want a complex subsystem in play. Spellcasting, particularly Vancian casting is a pretty complex system. So I could see choosing not to add that for that reason. I could also see doing it as a challenge, you want to keep your character in an environment where it's easier. It's also worth noting that a lot of the necessary parts of magic can be covered by party members or magic items. That's why the Necessary Items List has things like "Flight" on it, so you should be able to manage that.

Personally I think the best answer is to be some form of initiator.

Depends on why you're eschewing caster completely.

If the reason you don't want to play a caster is because the flavour doesn't suit your martial build idea, initiator is a fine solution.

If the reason you don't want to play a caster is because you want the simpler mechanics of a martial, initiator doesn't really solve your problem, because you still have a bunch of mechanics you need to learn, understand and choose from with the martial, same as a spellcaster.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Like people said, several builds like WS Ranger get a strong enough progression that you don't want to deviate from it much.

Also if the DM uses a lot of monsters/classes that have anti-caster abilities (like Magebane weapons, Arcane Hunter favored enemy, various monsters that hurt or screw over casters beyond what they do to noncasters), having a few low level spells might be more of a drawback than a positive.

If the DM provides substantial wealth and easy access to purchase magic items, then a simple UMD investment can grant access to the same low level magic effects that a few CL would've granted anyway, and mathematically the non-caster class features you can obtain might genuinely be better or more valuable than some 1st level magic.

Those are the main mechanical/logical reasons I can think of. Obviously if you want to RP someone who uses no magic, that settles it anyway.


I'm not sure a limited number of 1st-level ranger slots are worth more than the free fighter feat you can get from Champion of the Wild.

Wand use alone is worth more than 1 bonus feat.
And a single prepared Healthful Rest will heal a crazy amount of hp for a WS Ranger/MoMF build. By level 10, it's providing potentially up to 60 extra healing per day (in practice it'll be less b/c optimizing healing won't be your main concern w/ when to change forms), and it just keeps scaling up the higher you go.

[AMFV]

Depends on why you're eschewing caster completely.

If the reason you don't want to play a caster is because the flavour doesn't suit your martial build idea, initiator is a fine solution.

For sure!



If the reason you don't want to play a caster is because you want the simpler mechanics of a martial, initiator doesn't really solve your problem, because you still have a bunch of mechanics you need to learn, understand and choose from with the martial, same as a spellcaster.

I mean... not really, casting is way more complex with a lot more mechanics and a lot more junk options than ToB. Maybe if there was more ToB content released that would be different.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

What about a Paladin? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?275093-its-a-villain-sort-of#5) That dips Cleric for turn undead and the inquisition domain, not for spellcasting.

[pabelfly]

I mean... not really, casting is way more complex with a lot more mechanics and a lot more junk options than ToB. Maybe if there was more ToB content released that would be different.

Fair point, but it's still more complex than a mundane martial is.

[Zancloufer]

If the reason you don't want to play a caster is because you want the simpler mechanics of a martial, initiator doesn't really solve your problem, because you still have a bunch of mechanics you need to learn, understand and choose from with the martial, same as a spellcaster.

Except they aren't really anymore complicated? Sure you technically have more things to choose from in a round, but if you can't select and use Martial Adept abilities correctly, you probably have trouble avoiding bad feat picks on a Barbarian, let alone a Fighter. Feat choice is much more impactful for non-ToB martial and can make or break a character.

On the flip side as Warblade, just choose two schools that sound cool, invest in the school skills and like 2-4 others. Take feats that let you go first or hit harder and main a two handed weapon. If you find a better +something weapon just swap your weapon specific feats to said weapon. Get close, use skill that sounds like it would help and full attack/flourish to recover powers.

I suppose a quick and dirty Warblade 6 would be;

Human
17 Str
14 Dex/Con/Int
10 Wis/Cha
[32 Point Buy]
Feats; Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Blind Fight, Weapon Specialization
Skills; Balance (11-2), Climb (13-2), Concentration (9), Intimidate (9), Jump (11-2), Swim (11-4), Tumble (9-2)
Maneuvers: Steel Wind, Moment of Perfect Mind, Punishing Stance [Stance], Emerald Razor, Disarming Strike, Iron Heart Surge, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Absolute Steel Stance [Stance]
Gear; +1 Two Handed Sword, +Str Item, +1 Mythril Breastplate, Other misc stuff.
HP; 6d12+12 [29-84 HP, 56 HP average rolls]
AC: 18
Saves: 6/5/1
Attack +12/+7 2d6+9 19-20x2
(Pretty light on gear tbh, but I went for a simple baseline here).


It's not the most effective front-liner, but I would argue you'd have to make a real effort in optimization to out do this with just a Fighter or Barbarian 6. Could go dumpster diving for feats or pick a slightly more optimal line up of Maneuvers, but we got multi-attack, hitting touch/flatfooted ac, extra speed, something to shore up our crap Will Save and the ability to shrug off a lot of CC/Debuffs.

[Troacctid]

Wand use alone is worth more than 1 bonus feat.
Technically, you can get wand use with a feat, so I'd argue that that particular aspect of ranger casting is worth exactly 1 bonus feat.

[AMFV]

Fair point, but it's still more complex than a mundane martial is.

I don't think that's actually true. A Warblade you could build pretty effectively without having to dive through six sourcebooks take ACFs on Barbarian Dip so you can pounce. Like in play a initiator is slightly more complex. But building a Mundane is so involved if you want them to be even a little bit successful. Which is again, part of why you might not want to Gish, because you're doing this whole build exercise. The complexity is what you're looking for. A Fighter in 3.5 is a series of problems for you to figure out ways to solve via optimization. If I slap spellcasting especially good spellcasting on that Fighter, I've solved those problems. They're solved. Which is okay and can be fun, but from the perspective of somebody looking to optimize and challenge themselves that's the easiest solution to the challenge.

[Gnaeus]

Also if the DM uses a lot of monsters/classes that have anti-caster abilities (like Magebane weapons, Arcane Hunter favored enemy, various monsters that hurt or screw over casters beyond what they do to noncasters), having a few low level spells might be more of a drawback than a positive..

That's not untrue I guess. But in general there are a lot more anti mundane monsters that you can bypass or combat with low level spells than specifically anti caster measures. So yes, if the DM is known to hate casters probably don't play one.

[Doctor Witch]

Mechanically the best reason not to Gish is when your party absolutely has your back and realize you're one of their best weapons. If they treat you like their main offense, like when you're playing Pathfinder and your party invests in Bonded Mind and Share Spells? It's up to your imaginations how powerful that mundane can be.

If that isn't possible, UMD and easy access to scrolls and wands mean not having to take a level without high BAB. I guess that counts if money is plentiful.

[holbita]

Mechanically the best reason not to Gish is when your party absolutely has your back and realize you're one of their best weapons. If they treat you like their main offense, like when you're playing Pathfinder and your party invests in Bonded Mind and Share Spells? It's up to your imaginations how powerful that mundane can be.

If that isn't possible, UMD and easy access to scrolls and wands mean not having to take a level without high BAB. I guess that counts if money is plentiful.

That's probably the biggest reason, if you have someone in the party casting buffs for you... do you really want delayed caster progression instead of more martial goodness?

[Gnaeus]

That's probably the biggest reason, if you have someone in the party casting buffs for you... do you really want delayed caster progression instead of more martial goodness?

Mechanically? Yes, absolutely. Your primary caster spends 2 feats in this example, and you spend 1, so that he can carry you. 2 casters means 2 crafters, which increases your mileage from WBL. 2 casters means you can cast twice as many spells in a round. 2 casters means you have twice the potential spell selection. 2 casters means you have twice as many planar allies, skeletal giants, stone golems, eidolons, solars etc. so adding a muggle reduces your total party martial goodness for your buffer to buff. 2 casters means your buddy doesn't have to worry about not casting his best minionmancy spells because they make the fighter look bad. 2 casters means your teammate doesn't have to spend the first couple of rounds in every battle deciding "should I cast the most effective spell option, or should I cast fly on Fred Fighter so that he can take relevant actions at all". 2 casters means that your wizards can have more spells known by specializing without worrying about losing party versatility. 2 casters means your spontaneous casters can choose different spells. 2 casters may mean you can learn spells from allies. 2 casters means that if you get separated or someone is immobilized the other PC isn't without spell support. The more caster you get, the better. But even if you only take one caster level, which isn't much of a gish, your caster can make spell trigger or completion items for you with craft wands or scribe scrolls, you both save a feat, and he winds up with a much stronger feat than Bonded Mind.

And specifically if you are playing in PF, its not even like your gish needs to be a sorcadin or abjurant champion (although sorcadins are fantastic in PF.) If you look at the tier list for pathfinder, you will see that muggles live exclusively in tier 4 and 5, and tier 3 is dominated by half casters, most of which do a great job in fighting while not sacrificing all their utility and versatility.

[Telonius]

Best reason not to gish: Your DM is enforcing favored class penalties, and your favored class isn't in your build.

[icefractal]

It's a bit cheese, but if we're talking optimized - because you already took Leadership, and your cohort has far superior casting to whatever you'd get from a dip.

Magic item crafting is, as mentioned, a case where more casters are better, but if the campaign doesn't have much downtime and/or is awarding more loot than typical at a rapid pace, then crafting may not be possible or important.

[Gnaeus]

It's a bit cheese, but if we're talking optimized - because you already took Leadership, and your cohort has far superior casting to whatever you'd get from a dip.

Magic item crafting is, as mentioned, a case where more casters are better, but if the campaign doesn't have much downtime and/or is awarding more loot than typical at a rapid pace, then crafting may not be possible or important.

Yes, but from a mechanical standpoint, a T1 10 and a T4 8 is stronger than a T4 10 and a T1 8. It's a way to make a more competitive muggle. The barbarian 10 is more forgiving if you have a pet cleric 8. But it's still worse power wise than just making a caster or a mostly caster. And honestly if you are investing in leadership you probably want decent charisma, which only makes casters and partial casters more attractive.

Yes, Higher WBL tends to reduce tier disparity (by giving everyone pseudo casting). Conversely, lower WBL or limited magic mart makes crafting and casting more critical, as noncasters are both more dependent on specific gear and less able to guarantee they can get it.

[pabelfly]

I don't think that's actually true. A Warblade you could build pretty effectively without having to dive through six sourcebooks take ACFs on Barbarian Dip so you can pounce. Like in play a initiator is slightly more complex. But building a Mundane is so involved if you want them to be even a little bit successful. Which is again, part of why you might not want to Gish, because you're doing this whole build exercise. The complexity is what you're looking for. A Fighter in 3.5 is a series of problems for you to figure out ways to solve via optimization. If I slap spellcasting especially good spellcasting on that Fighter, I've solved those problems. They're solved. Which is okay and can be fun, but from the perspective of somebody looking to optimize and challenge themselves that's the easiest solution to the challenge.

Building an effective mundane does require more initial bookwork and prep than an Initiator, yes. However, in the context that it's me that's making the character and I want to give it to someone else to play, something like a Barbarian/Fighter build is quite simple but effective in play. In fact, if you have someone you want to introduce to 3e, it's probably the best martial build while they get a handle on playing.

[AMFV]

Building an effective mundane does require more initial bookwork and prep than an Initiator, yes. However, in the context that it's me that's making the character and I want to give it to someone else to play, something like a Barbarian/Fighter build is quite simple but effective in play. In fact, if you have someone you want to introduce to 3e, it's probably the best martial build while they get a handle on playing.

I would argue that crusader is probably the best build if you want to give somebody an introduction to third edition you don't really get that many abilities you don't get to pick which abilities you have and generally all of your abilities are going to be effective. With a fighter or barbarian you're worried about either setting up conditions for charging, or remembering to do opportunity attacks and remembering to pay attention to a bunch of stuff that's not on your turn. And those are both a lot more involved. And with the crusader if you mess up it's not that big a deal with a barbarian or the fighter if you mess up you could basically might as well not even be there for the combat.

[icefractal]

Yes, but from a mechanical standpoint, a T1 10 and a T4 8 is stronger than a T4 10 and a T1 8. It's a way to make a more competitive muggle. The barbarian 10 is more forgiving if you have a pet cleric 8. But it's still worse power wise than just making a caster or a mostly caster. Party composition still matters. At most levels of optimization, there's a point where you get more benefit from a high-damage attacker than yet another caster. And sure, Mailmen exist, but they have worse stamina.

Also, very few published monsters are immune to a flying charger with good senses. And most GM's (IME) are not going to be creating custom foes with the intent of screwing over the martials, so seldom immunity there either. So in a party that's caster-heavy and has buffs (and you're throwing free power away if you don't use at least moderate buffs), a well-built martial is a substantial efficiency-boost, allowing much more stamina in terms of spell slots.

Now I think the ideal ratio (for power) is more like "3+ casters per martial" than an even split, but it's not zero martials either.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Technically, you can get wand use with a feat, so I'd argue that that particular aspect of ranger casting is worth exactly 1 bonus feat.


The Ranger variant gives an extremely limited feat list, while as you'd have to use one of your precious general feat slots for what you say, so I still think it's inferior. Not all feat slots are created equal.


That's not untrue I guess. But in general there are a lot more anti mundane monsters that you can bypass or combat with low level spells than specifically anti caster measures. So yes, if the DM is known to hate casters probably don't play one.

I've seen some DMs do that, and I definitely try to implement more anti-caster stuff when I DM. I don't like phrasing it as "hating casters" that I want to make them slightly less overpowered compared to martials, if anything the game itself hates martials w/ as you said how many monsters are anti-melee and how many status effects basically do nothing to a caster.
It's just that as a side-effect of implementing more anti-caster stuff for balance against the full-casters, it has the side effect of making a small foray into casting possibly more of a drawback than a boon to an otherwise non-caster.

In any case, I think DM attempts at reining in or targeting casters to counter their power is common enough for it to be mentioned as a reason not to add that vulnerability to yourself for a few 1st level spells.

[Gnaeus]

I've seen some DMs do that, and I definitely try to implement more anti-caster stuff when I DM. I don't like phrasing it as "hating casters" that I want to make them slightly less overpowered compared to martials, if anything the game itself hates martials w/ as you said how many monsters are anti-melee and how many status effects basically do nothing to a caster.
It's just that as a side-effect of implementing more anti-caster stuff for balance against the full-casters, it has the side effect of making a small foray into casting possibly more of a drawback than a boon to an otherwise non-caster.

In any case, I think DM attempts at reining in or targeting casters to counter their power is common enough for it to be mentioned as a reason not to add that vulnerability to yourself for a few 1st level spells.

Oh, I completely agree. The game does hate martials. It is obvious and axiomatic that if the DM is holding down the scales against you, that changes the math. If you change the game, you change the answer. In 3.5, it is never the optimized choice to play a martial. In 3.StreamOfTheSky, which is not the same game, that may not be true. That depends on what DM attempts to rein in or target casters means. The answer to "which is heavier, a feather or a bowling ball" does not actually change if I am standing on the scale on the feather side.

I'm a caster player. In my local game we have a series of caster limiting rules, including crafting limitations and a restriction on not having a bunch of long term pets, and I still play gishes and theurges and to give my muggles space. My first rule of optimization is "give up 2 caster levels". But thats because I'm trying to play down. And thats in a game dominated by Path of War and other T3 martials.


Party composition still matters. At most levels of optimization, there's a point where you get more benefit from a high-damage attacker than yet another caster. And sure, Mailmen exist, but they have worse stamina.

Also, very few published monsters are immune to a flying charger with good senses. And most GM's (IME) are not going to be creating custom foes with the intent of screwing over the martials, so seldom immunity there either. So in a party that's caster-heavy and has buffs (and you're throwing free power away if you don't use at least moderate buffs), a well-built martial is a substantial efficiency-boost, allowing much more stamina in terms of spell slots.

Now I think the ideal ratio (for power) is more like "3+ casters per martial" than an even split, but it's not zero martials either.

There is no level of optimization at which you get more benefit from a muggle than yet another caster. Pick any level above 7. No martial contributes the level of 0 spell slot damage that an an arbitrary number of bound and allied outsiders + some constructs + charmed or mind controlled or mindraped minions + double or quadruple his HD in controlled undead can yield. A party of 4 casters doesn't suffer from a lack of targets to buff. The only reason they would is if they are intentionally protecting the barbarian's niche by not making or summoning or coercing half a dozen barbarian equivalents before they even walk into the dungeon. Even if for some reason you felt you needed a melee PC, CoDzilla fills the role better than barbarian before you add the allies or undead. As does a barbarian with a single dip of cleric for some wands in wand chambers and free travel devotion. A party of Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Beguiler only loses by replacing any of those slots with a melee muggle. If you have a 5th slot, a Bard, a Dread Necro, or a Sorcadin all bring more to the table than a melee muggle. What fighter/barbarian at ECL 11 are you going to bring to the table that is going to protect me and put bad guys on the floor better than the combined efforts of the Leonal, Ghaele and Trumpet Archon I summoned the day before (and if you figure one out, I will add a stone golem and 22 hd of undead giant or dragon)? And I'm just pulling those from the suggested list in CD. I'm not even dumpster diving. And they are ALL ADDING spell slots, not draining them. I would really rather the barbarian not show up to play, because if he does, dropping my angels in the battle is rude to that player, so we are stronger without him than with him.

I will again refer to Pabelfly's correct answer. I know PLAYERS who cannot utilize the comparative advantages of casting, or don't have the mental space to operate their dread necro and his 7 pets. For that PLAYER the barbarian may be the correct decision. But when is it better on pure mechanics to add a character without casting? Virtually never. MAYBE in a party that already has 7 or 8 casters and you are solely worried about AMFs or magic immune targets that are also immune to SR no spells and have DR too high to be minion swamped.

The point of the Mailman isn't that he does absurd damage. It is that he does absurd damage without giving up much caster utility when he isn't rolling a handful of dice. He can still put the same number of minions in play as any other sorcerer. Meaning that he has arbitrarily better stamina than the charger.

[AMFV]

Oh, I completely agree. The game does hate martials. It is obvious and axiomatic that if the DM is holding down the scales against you, that changes the math. If you change the game, you change the answer. In 3.5, it is never the optimized choice to play a martial. In 3.StreamOfTheSky, which is not the same game, that may not be true. That depends on what DM attempts to rein in or target casters means. The answer to "which is heavier, a feather or a bowling ball" does not actually change if I am standing on the scale on the feather side.

I'm a caster player. In my local game we have a series of caster limiting rules, including crafting limitations and a restriction on not having a bunch of long term pets, and I still play gishes and theurges and to give my muggles space. My first rule of optimization is "give up 2 caster levels". But thats because I'm trying to play down. And thats in a game dominated by Path of War and other T3 martials.

It's worth noting that you can do something God Wizard and go relatively hog wild! Like support caster has that advantage. if you aren't summoning scabs to take the fighter's job, or buffing yourself into a better fighter you can do a lot of stuff where you're supporting the party without having to strip your optimization stuff.

[Anthrowhale]

I will again refer to Pabelfly's correct answer. I know PLAYERS who cannot utilize the comparative advantages of casting, or don't have the mental space to operate their dread necro and his 7 pets. For that PLAYER the barbarian may be the correct decision. But when is it better on pure mechanics to add a character without casting? Virtually never. MAYBE in a party that already has 7 or 8 casters and you are solely worried about AMFs or magic immune targets that are also immune to SR no spells and have DR too high to be minion swamped.

I'm not really disputing the thesis in baseline D&D, but it seems worth noting that there are at least two published locations (Anauroch in Faerun and the Outlands near Sigil) which are dead magic or deeply restricted magic.

[Lorddenorstrus]

I mean.. in a non DM environment like theorycraft. With a blankslate. There basically isn't ever a reason not to build Gishes. They're better Martials than actual Martials are. That's just 3.X in a nut shell though.

If the environment adds a DM they would have to modify something to make magic less desirable. But at that point, I don't see why they'd be playing 3.X. The caster god edition really.

Past that.. personal preference? Maybe player got bored of casters lol?

[AMFV]

I mean.. in a non DM environment like theorycraft. With a blankslate. There basically isn't ever a reason not to build Gishes. They're better Martials than actual Martials are. That's just 3.X in a nut shell though.

There are a couple situations that aren't being touched on here. If you never get enough Caster Levels to actually be doing anything, it might not be worth it. If I'm building a Hulking Hurler/Bloodstorm Blade character I have barely any levels to play with to add casting. That's initiator of course, so that wouldn't be exactly what OP was talking about but it's kind of that sort of situation. If I'm a Frenzied Berserker... I'm never going to be able to cast anyways so why would I spend build resources on something that I'm never going to be good at. And Frenzied Berserker is very strong, uniquely so actually.

But yeah generally the reason why you wouldn't gish is that often casting is really involved and you have to focus on it. Is a Fighter 5/Wizard one better than a Fighter 6 that just picked up the second Dungeon Crasher ACF level? Probably not. I mean sure you're weaker in many ways than a Wizard at that level, but basically if you're not going to be good at it then you're spending build resources on something you suck at, and that's kind of not very valuable.

Now there are ways to add casting/gishing later: Suel Arcanamach, Divine Crusader, Pious Templar, Ur-Priest even... and many others. That are generally very good and strong. But those are also mid to high level things and again if you're doing something like Eternal Blade or Bloodstorm Blade or Halfling Outrider... you're not going to have the levels to make any attempt at gishing good. From an optimization perspective that's when you don't bother with it.

Oh yeah, Ubermount! That's another one that doesn't want to Gish.



If the environment adds a DM they would have to modify something to make magic less desirable. But at that point, I don't see why they'd be playing 3.X. The caster god edition really.

This highlights one of the other reasons people might not want to Gish, because DMs are more likely to be more suspicious of gishy characters or casters and therefore are less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rulings. That's not always the case, but definitely that could be the case.




Past that.. personal preference? Maybe player got bored of casters lol?

This is the other reason why you wouldn't want to. Or just an extra challenge.

[Lorddenorstrus]

There are a couple situations that aren't being touched on here. If you never get enough Caster Levels to actually be doing anything, it might not be worth it. If I'm building a Hulking Hurler/Bloodstorm Blade character snip

I mean I think all of that falls under 3. Not wanting to play a caster so you're deciding to instead do something else. Because well built gishes should outperform any pure martial build made no matter what really. Keywords "well built gishes." Knowing that what ever you make is just going to be less effective than a theoretically designed Caster/Melee Gish or pure caster. If you're under section 1, you're thinking. I want to play melee, but be as effective as possible. Solution Gish. *shrug* really just depends on what level of optimization your group plays at really. An ungodly min maxed group would probably find a pure martial to be more like a pet at later levels. Lower op groups are more than likely the norm and be completely fine.

I think Functional balance is a delicate tightrope so everyone feels useful with out anyone going to overboard; and outside of board TO discussion Martials have a place at many tables and are of no problem and don't need to be Gished to be functional. Which floats back to just, personal flavor and how/what you want to play for enjoyment. I have no issues w/ the group I'm currently DMing for they're hella low Op. Pure martials for some party members, and they never need to know that I'm lobotomizing most of the enemies I originally planned so they can enjoy the campaign with out dying all the time. Hell lobotimized enemies have still almost killed them a few times zzz. So they feel in danger with out knowing it could've been a lot worse.

[liquidformat]

I actually prefer mundanes in general so I am always sad how nerfed they are in 3.5. Anyways one of my favorites is Primeval I often go with Bear Totem Barb 3/Wild shape Ranger 5/Fist of the Forest 2/Primeval 10
Also going Weretouched Master/War shaper is awesome as long as you have an agreement with your DM to ignore the errata that ruined that PRC. I normally go straight Barbarian 5 into weretouched Master or sometimes barb 3/ranger 2 when I have a DM that lets me take shifter feats in place of combat style feats. On a side note it is a travesty that the shifter ranger didn't do that to begin with.
Black Blood Cultist is another fun one if you are more on the evil side of the spectrum.


A war hulk will probably like war hulk more than whatever gish class can even be entered without mental skills.

My favorite epic level character was a war hulk/hulking hurler build and he was literally picking up castles and throwing them at people it was great and I didn't have to worry about all those complicated spells or nothing.

[icefractal]

No martial contributes the level of 0 spell slot damage that an an arbitrary number of bound and allied outsiders + some constructs + charmed or mind controlled or mindraped minions + double or quadruple his HD in controlled undead can yield. A party of 4 casters doesn't suffer from a lack of targets to buff. The only reason they would is if they are intentionally protecting the barbarian's niche by not making or summoning or coercing half a dozen barbarian equivalents before they even walk into the dungeon. Ah - ok yes, if full minion-mancy is viable, then it's pretty much the apex of power. But IME, it isn't, not even in high-op games, for two reasons:
1) Practical time constraints. More minions means combat takes longer. A battle of "the five PCs and their 500 minions, vs several hundred foes" is going to take longer than anyone actually wants to play out. So even in a "bring the cheese" game there's always been a formal or informal limit.
2) Without a limit (which doesn't exist RAW) it becomes "arbitrarily large army vs arbitrarily large army" and not even possible to resolve by the rules. I mean, you mention "arbitrarily large number of bound and allied outsiders" right there.

The rules do also have a few choke-point factors on bringing massive armies, such as the fact that Wish is the only way to reach fully locked demiplanes, and it only brings 1 creature / CL.

But you know what? Let's toss all that aside, because it's moot. The key fact is that "arbitrary number" means it doesn't matter how many casters you have, because even with one caster you have an arbitrarily large number of minions. Controlled undead are the only ones limited per caster, all the others you mention are only limited by time and/or money, and since they're unlimited they dwarf the controlled undead into irrelevance when fully exploited.

It kinda suggest that the ideal party in a no-limits environment is "one caster who can generate arbitrarily many minions" and the rest of the party is specialized toward dealing with any situations that would prevent the minions being used, because if the minions are used then they win.



Because well built gishes should outperform any pure martial build made no matter what really. By what mechanism though? Because if it's self-buffing, then that's often true but not always - in a world where there are already multiple full casters throwing out Chained buffs, the relatively-puny buffing ability of a gish may not be any improvement.

Although TBF, it's rare that a martial build needs all twenty levels. So it's often true that adding a little bit of casting is basically free and therefore a benefit even if it seldom comes up.

[AMFV]

I mean I think all of that falls under 3. Not wanting to play a caster so you're deciding to instead do something else. Because well built gishes should outperform any pure martial build made no matter what really. Keywords "well built gishes." Knowing that what ever you make is just going to be less effective than a theoretically designed Caster/Melee Gish or pure caster. If you're under section 1, you're thinking. I want to play melee, but be as effective as possible. Solution Gish. *shrug* really just depends on what level of optimization your group plays at really. An ungodly min maxed group would probably find a pure martial to be more like a pet at later levels. Lower op groups are more than likely the norm and be completely fine.

Oh, we're talking TO? What "well built Gish" beats a D2 Crusader at melee damage? What "well built Gish" beats a Hulking Hurler? There's a reason I picked that as my example, bud. Optimized Hulking Hurler is going to outdamage almost anything in the game. 5th level spells ain't gonna beat that man. And with the ways for melee to pick up "gishing" you're like at 5th to 6th level spells tops.

Edit: A "Well Built" Gish is solidly Medium Tier PO. There's nothing wrong with that, you could play that at almost any table, but you're not doing infinite damage. Or an arbitrarily high number of damage.

[pabelfly]

Besides antimagic fields and dispels, casters also have a problem if they face more than four combats a day or going to get disrupted from their long rest. Martials have an advantage that they can go all day, at the same power, and then go the next day without rest and be just as effective. Oh, and they're generally quite effective even from level 1, while casters take a few levels to get online.

The situations where casting isn't as effective as normal may or may not be meaningful, depending on the table and the DM. Still, I don't think it would be bad idea to have at least one martial in a party if you do encounter some of those edge cases.

[AMFV]

Besides antimagic fields and dispels, casters also have a problem if they face more than four combats a day or going to get disrupted from their long rest. Martials have an advantage that they can go all day, at the same power, and then go the next day without rest and be just as effective. Oh, and they're generally quite effective even from level 1, while casters take a few levels to get online.

I think that particular advantage is overstated. There are situations where that can come up, but casters have lots of ways of dealing with them, from Scribing Scrolls to Wands to even just practicing basic spell conservation. Also I would argue that a well played Caster is good from level 1. At least in my experience.



The situations where casting isn't as effective as normal may or may not be meaningful, depending on the table and the DM. Still, I don't think it would be bad idea to have at least one martial in a party if you do encounter some of those edge cases.

Well again with martials you have specific builds that they do relatively well. a Cleric with Righteous Might and Divine Power up is going to be a better fighter than an unoptimized fighter, but he's still probably going to want to spend at least some standard actions casting spells. An Ubercharger/Ubermount/Chain Tripper has a pretty limited focus. Now summoning is kind of the big monkey wrench in that, but abuse of summons tends to be a strategy that raises DM alarm bells.

The big issue is that a "Gish" is a solidly mid-OP thing. You aren't as good as a full caster, and generally you don't have the actions to really be doing much "gishing" You're mostly alternating between being a really decent fighter and a mediocre caster. There are of course exceptions. The main issue is that the full casters in your party can generally cover the casting better than you can.

Like if I'm building a Shock Trooper Spirit Lion Totem Barb 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1, I don't have any levels to "Gish" and I've already lost five levels and practically all my feats towards being good at the thing I'm good at. At mid to high levels that may not be the case, but at lower mid levels I don't have room for it, and at mid to high levels I don't have the resources to do it well.

Like Divine Crusader is thought of as being "mostly bad" for a reason, because it's not enough casting to make you a good caster. Suel Arcanamach is good, but it's something that's going to need to be a character focus from the beginning. There are other options for Gishing like Warmind, but generally dipping a few levels in caster isn't going to get you all that much especially if you have full casters in the party.


Edit (Missed this earlier)



Although TBF, it's rare that a martial build needs all twenty levels. So it's often true that adding a little bit of casting is basically free and therefore a benefit even if it seldom comes up.

Yeah, generally, the big issue is that adding a little bit of casting usually isn't that much of a benefit or is solving problems you've already solved. If you're a martial above level 10, you've already solved your flight issue, probably with items. So spending 3 - 6 levels to get from a Caster "dip" isn't really worth it. Like I love gishes, they are my favorite game archetype and I recognize that generally speaking you're not going to be good enough at casting for it to be all that great.

[icefractal]

Yeah, I was thinking more like a little utility casting for times when the party is split up. Not something that'll come up much, but the difference between BAB +20 and BAB +19 doesn't come up much either. And since this is likely non-combat stuff, it works for a rager too.

Although, there is Mage Slayer and the related feats. Taking those is going to crash your CL enough that a dip no longer gives casting, and they're pretty good feats (depending on the campaign, but if we're assuming high-op then likely applicable).

[pabelfly]

I think that particular advantage is overstated. There are situations where that can come up, but casters have lots of ways of dealing with them, from Scribing Scrolls to Wands to even just practicing basic spell conservation. Also I would argue that a well played Caster is good from level 1. At least in my experience.

Let's take a martial with a greatsword. Their best score was a 16 (which they put in STR), they pick a race that's a +2 to STR and end up with 18 STR. 13 damage per attack is enough to deal with most CR 1 opponents in one hit. No special classes, no special feats, just a half-decent ability score, a race with a STR bonus and a two-handed weapon. Casting can be helpful, but you'd have to do really specific builds to do OHKOs at level one, never mind doing them all day.

As for going for extended periods without rest, yes, casters can use wands all day, but their wands are not going to be as potent as their highest-level spell slots.


Like if I'm building a Shock Trooper Spirit Lion Totem Barb 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1

What is this build? Barbarian 2 is a really odd breaking point, I'd break off at first level or stay long-term in Barbarian. Shock Trooper would prefer the extra feat or a good ACF like Resolute from another two Fighter levels. One level of Warblade only gives you first-level manoeuvres or stances, you would be better using your extra level in Barb for more Warblade levels or to help get that fourth-level Fighter level and get the required feats online or maybe some AC. Or just go full Warblade and not get Shock Trooper, the point of Initiators is that you can be effective with minimal feat expenditure and you don't need strategies like Shock Trooper.

[icefractal]

Lol, just thought of a rather strange but plausible reason -

In a high-op high-level environment, Disjunction is a very powerful tool, as it auto-dispels buff stacks and magic traps (which if you're attacking a prepared location, there could be a lot of). But it carries a terrible risk - the irreversible loss of all casting if you nail an artifact and then fail the save. It's a low chance, but still one that a high-level caster may be loath to risk.

But a non-caster UMDing a scroll doesn't have that risk. Traditionally that's a Rogue, but it doesn't need to be.

Oh and it also pisses off a god, but in such an environment isn't that the norm anyway? Seems like really high-power PCs would be pissing off some gods (and making others happy) on a frequent basis.

[AMFV]

Let's take a martial with a greatsword. Their best score was a 16 (which they put in STR), they pick a race that's a +2 to STR and end up with 18 STR. 13 damage per attack is enough to deal with most CR 1 opponents in one hit. No special classes, no special feats, just a half-decent ability score, a race with a STR bonus and a two-handed weapon. Casting can be helpful, but you'd have to do really specific builds to do OHKOs at level one, never mind doing them all day.

At low level you generally don't want your casters to be focused on killing things. You want them to Sleep or Color Spray half the encounter. If you're fighting tough encounters.




As for going for extended periods without rest, yes, casters can use wands all day, but their wands are not going to be as potent as their highest-level spell slots.

Which is why you would make scrolls. The Scrolls are expensive sure, you can even buy higher level scrolls for emergency stuff. It's just generally good practice. It's not as sustainable, but it will usually get you past that one day when the DM has you do 8 combats without resting.



What is this build? Barbarian 2 is a really odd breaking point, I'd break off at first level or stay long-term in Barbarian. Shock Trooper would prefer the extra feat or a good ACF like Resolute from another two Fighter levels. One level of Warblade only gives you first-level manoeuvres or stances, you would be better using your extra level in Barb for Warblade, or to help get that fourth-level Fighter level and get the required feats online or maybe some AC. Or just go full Warblade and not get Shock Trooper, the point of Initiators is that you can be effective with minimal feat expenditure and you don't need strategies like Shock Trooper. - Emphasis mine

The Emphasized point is WRONG. You only get first level STANCES. But you can get higher than first level maneuvers. The reason people take two levels in Crusader is to pick up Thicket which is a third level stance. "You must meet a maneuver's prerequisite to learn it. " That's all it says about maneuvers. If you have 19 levels of Crusader you could pick a 9th level maneuver if you dip Warblade at 20.

One that intends to take more levels of Barbarian... the Warblade and Fighter levels would be the likely dips there. Initiators work GREAT on Uberchargers. Why is that 3.5 people are now saying they aren't Iron Heart to pick up a counter that fixes your AC problem when you charge? IHS to let you charge? It's a fricking great dip on an Ubercharger. Sudden F-ing leap so that you can charge! You get so much from one level there.

You use Sudden Leap to set you up for a charge. Which is often a problem for Uberchargers. You get a stance, some of them are very good. Punishing Stance is great (at low levels). Diamond Mind stuff to fix your bad saves? Like this is an obvious choice for an Ubercharger. Unless you want to be completely stopped because there's rough terrain and you can't jump over it. Or completely stopped because you fail a Will Save.... or completely stopped because you don't have IHS.

The only thing is that you might to want till later to take that Warblade Dip, depending on your leap frogging plan. But you definitely want a dip. Especially towards mid levels.

Edit: Sorry about coming off so strong, I've just seen recently people talking about not dipping on an Ubercharger or a Chain Tripper and you absolutely want to. Being able to Sudden Leap and then Charge when otherwise you'd have spent a round setting up a charge? Being able to IHS away a condition that would stop you from charging? Sure if you're a charger you don't need the super intense damage maneuvers, cause you're already doing that. But the utility, counters, and boosters are really great for you. Diamond Mind save replacers are really hot to have.

Edit 2: The reason that you don't see those dips on builds on Gleemax or Minmax or BG (Archives of course) is because those dips did not exist at that time because ToB came out later. I guarantee that in like 2008 and 2009 everybody was dipping at least a level on every ubercharger build

Edit 3: Wall of Blades is the counter that can keep your Ubercharger alive when they've tanked their AC to zero and they get an AoO. That's the one I was thinking of.

[pabelfly]

At low level you generally don't want your casters to be focused on killing things. You want them to Sleep or Color Spray half the encounter. If you're fighting tough encounters.




Which is why you would make scrolls. The Scrolls are expensive sure, you can even buy higher level scrolls for emergency stuff. It's just generally good practice. It's not as sustainable, but it will usually get you past that one day when the DM has you do 8 combats without resting.

- Emphasis mine

The Emphasized point is WRONG. You only get first level STANCES. But you can get higher than first level maneuvers. The reason people take two levels in Crusader is to pick up Thicket which is a third level stance. "You must meet a maneuver's prerequisite to learn it. " That's all it says about maneuvers. If you have 19 levels of Crusader you could pick a 9th level maneuver if you dip Warblade at 20.

One that intends to take more levels of Barbarian... the Warblade and Fighter levels would be the likely dips there. Initiators work GREAT on Uberchargers. Why is that 3.5 people are now saying they aren't Iron Heart to pick up a counter that fixes your AC problem when you charge? IHS to let you charge? It's a fricking great dip on an Ubercharger. Sudden F-ing leap so that you can charge! You get so much from one level there.

You use Sudden Leap to set you up for a charge. Which is often a problem for Uberchargers. You get a stance, some of them are very good. Punishing Stance is great (at low levels). Diamond Mind stuff to fix your bad saves? Like this is an obvious choice for an Ubercharger. Unless you want to be completely stopped because there's rough terrain and you can't jump over it. Or completely stopped because you fail a Will Save.... or completely stopped because you don't have IHS.

The only thing is that you might to want till later to take that Warblade Dip, depending on your leap frogging plan. But you definitely want a dip. Especially towards mid levels.

Edit: Sorry about coming off so strong, I've just seen recently people talking about not dipping on an Ubercharger or a Chain Tripper and you absolutely want to. Being able to Sudden Leap and then Charge when otherwise you'd have spent a round setting up a charge? Being able to IHS away a condition that would stop you from charging? Sure if you're a charger you don't need the super intense damage maneuvers, cause you're already doing that. But the utility, counters, and boosters are really great for you. Diamond Mind save replacers are really hot to have.

Edit 2: The reason that you don't see those dips on builds on Gleemax or Minmax or BG (Archives of course) is because those dips did not exist at that time because ToB came out later. I guarantee that in like 2008 and 2009 everybody was dipping at least a level on every ubercharger build

Edit 3: Wall of Blades is the counter that can keep your Ubercharger alive when they've tanked their AC to zero and they get an AoO. That's the one I was thinking of.

Some corrections:

The first level of taking an initiator class, regardless of level, you need to take first-level stances and manoeuvres. When you take the second level, that's when you can start adding your various class levels to work out your Initiator level and what level of manoeuvres you'd be able to pick from. That's why the Crusader example you gave took that second level of Crusader. At least your Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1 build makes some sense, if you intend to take Warblade 2 next level and get some second-level manoeuvres. I still think you'd either want to go straight Warblade, or ditch Warblade entirely.

Diamond Mind is good, but only if you are going to be regularly boosting your Concentration check. Barbarian and Fighter don't get Concentration as a skill, so you'll likely be wasting a feat to make it a class skill and a bunch of skill points to make it work. Instead, I would suggest us the Fighter levels to take the Resolute ACF (Complete Champion) which lets you temporarily tank your BAB to boost your Will save. Alternatively (or also), a Fighter might pick up Endurance and Steadfast Determination, and key off your Will save to your much better CON stat. Several Orc races even come with Endurance, and Orc is a pretty good pick for a charging martial.

If you're worried about the consistency of charging (fair), you can get the Leap Attack feat, and skill tricks like Nimble Charge and Twisted Charge make charging much more reliable, making uneven ground and obstacles that much less of a problem. You'd have to get Balance as a class skill (take Martial Study: Stone Dragon to get balance), but that is worth a feat to make sure charging works much better for you.

I wouldn't actually take Shock Trooper. Great for theorycrafting, but really inadequate in-game. You also do enough damage with charging without it if you boost your accuracy enough.

Here's what my version of a mundane charger would look like at level 5, using an ECL 1 race.

Frostblood Orc. Barbarian 1/Fighter 4.
Barbarian has Whirling Frenzy ACF.

B: Endurance
1: Martial Study: Stone Dragon
F1: Weapon Focus
F2: Resolute ACF
3: Extra Rage
F4: Weapon Specialization

Assuming you're using a Greatsword, with a STR of 26 (18 + 4 Orc + 4 Whirling Frenzy), you'd be doing 2d6 + 14 damage twice per turn. And at sixth level, you'll be doing that three times a turn. It isn't the most exciting build, but if you want a martial that's likely putting down one opponent per turn, this will do a pretty solid job.

[AMFV]

Some corrections:

I'm not seeing any corrections here, honestly.





The first level of taking an initiator class, regardless of level, you need to take first-level stances and manoeuvres. When you take the second level, that's when you can start adding your various class levels to work out your Initiator level and what level of manoeuvres you'd be able to pick from. That's why the Crusader example you gave took that second level of Crusader. At least your Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1 build makes some sense, if you intend to take Warblade 2 next level and get some second-level manoeuvres. I still think you'd either want to go straight Warblade, or ditch Warblade entirely.

You are again completely ****ing wrong. That is not correct. That applies ONLY to stances.

"Stances Known: You begin play with knowledge of one 1st level stance from any discipline open to warblades" That is the text that makes that the cases for stances. It is not the case for maneuvers.

Edit: Again for Maneuvers the only thing it says is that you must qualify for them. I'm not even sure it's exactly strictly true for stances because it says "you begin play" which you are not doing when you multiclass. I mean I would certainly not object to a DM ruling that but even that's not 100% clear.

And like read "Tome of Battle for Dummies" ToB classes are incredibly dippable, they are the most dippable and desirable dips on a martial class. Show me the text that stops you from gaining 2nd level maneuvers at level one. It is only the case for stances, again. Not maneuvers. There is no text that backs that.

The Crusader example took the second level because the ONLY thing they care about is Thicket of Blades. Thicket of Blades is a stance. Also 2nd level of Crusader isn't bad anyways.



Diamond Mind is good, but only if you are going to be regularly boosting your Concentration check. Barbarian and Fighter don't get Concentration as a skill, so you'll likely be wasting a feat to make it a class skill and a bunch of skill points to make it work. Instead, I would suggest us the Fighter levels to take the Resolute ACF (Complete Champion) which lets you temporarily tank your BAB to boost your Will save. Alternatively (or also), a Fighter might pick up Endurance and Steadfast Determination, and key off your Will save to your much better CON stat. Several Orc races even come with Endurance, and Orc is a pretty good pick for a charging martial.

Concentration is based on Con and Warblade has enough that you can put some points in it. It will be better than your Will Save is likely to be. Usually that's not the reason you're dipping, but if you happen to be able to do that, it might work. Endurance and Steadfast is TWO feats. An Ubercharger at level 6 has to take Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Probably Leap Attack. Prereqs for any Prestige classes you're look into. You might be able to Swing two feats for it. But you might not. And it depends on what other tricks you're looking into.




If you're worried about the consistency of charging (fair), you can get the Leap Attack feat, and skill tricks like Nimble Charge and Twisted Charge make charging much more reliable, making uneven ground and obstacles that much less of a problem. You'd have to get Balance as a class skill (take Martial Study: Stone Dragon to get balance), but that is worth a feat to make sure charging works much better for you.

Leap Attack is MANDATORY for higher optimization Chargers. So you'll be taking that. Those skill tricks you want to snag also.. So you might want Martial Study (IRON ****ING HEART GUY) Like you don't want Stone Dragon on a character that isn't going to be on the ground when they're attacking. You pick up another Iron Heart maneuver. Like the one that makes Shock Trooper work great. Wall of Blades. Then if you have an AC of 0, you just Wall of Blades once and it usually works out pretty good.



I wouldn't actually take Shock Trooper. Great for theorycrafting, but really inadequate in-game. You also do enough damage with charging without it if you boost your accuracy enough.

The problem is that you really want to be able to hit because that's fundamentally your job, and if you have something like Wall of Blades you can do just fine with that AC lowering.




Here's what my version of a mundane charger would look like at level 5, using an ECL 1 race.

Frostblood Orc. Barbarian 1/Fighter 4.
Barbarian has Whirling Frenzy ACF.

B: Endurance
1: Martial Study: Stone Dragon
F1: Weapon Focus
F2: Resolute ACF
3: Extra Rage
F4: Weapon Specialization

Assuming you're using a Greatsword, with a STR of 26 (18 + 4 Orc + 4 Whirling Frenzy), you'd be doing 2d6 + 14 damage twice per turn. And at sixth level, you'll be doing that three times a turn. It isn't the most exciting build, but if you want a martial that's likely putting down one opponent per turn, this will do a pretty solid job.

You should be snagging Martial Study (Iron Heart) not Stone Dragon that also gives you Balance. Weapon Focus and Specialization are just wasted here. Like that +2 is not really worth bothering about.

Let's look at what you've got vs. the way I would build. You have one martial maneuver, and you're just in a really bad place to compete with an optimized charger. Yours is fine for a mid optimization game. But even a practical high optimization game you're gonna want stuff a little differently. To be fair my build was an example of a leveling Ubercharger not "the most optimal build at level 5" Which is actually not a great level for Uberchargers anyways. That third level of fighter really hurts you. Also I don't think I would take extra Rage. I mean maybe but I feel like there are better things you could be doing.

And even then you want that Warblade dip. Like you want that so badly. You want to be able to pick up a couple good maneuvers. Basically Stone Dragon is better on like a tripper or lockdown build because then you're on the ground. You don't want to ever pass up doubling your Power Attack damage on an ubercharger.

Edit: If you're gonna the Endurance Steadfast route, you should probably pick that up earlier, rather than wait.

Edit 2: The only reason you would ever want to take two levels of fighter in a higher optimization context is if you are doing Dungeoncrasher... and Dungeoncrasher is already not good enough for that context. Dungeoncrasher is like a fun mid Optimization build.

Edit 3: It's Steel Wind you'd want actually with your feat. Wall of Blades is a level 2 Counter. I had misremembered the level.

Edit 4: Also you could take Martial Study (Any Diamond Mind Maneuver) and get Concentration as a class skill if you're considering the save remover route, which might be better than the skill trick option.

[Troacctid]

Does it really count as a gish if all you have is utility casting that's completely orthogonal to your combat strategy? Like, is an Ebonmar Infiltrator a gish if her spells are comprehend languages, detect evil, disguise self, invisibility, knock, spider climb, and locate object?

[pabelfly]

Does it really count as a gish if all you have is utility casting that's completely orthogonal to your combat strategy? Like, is an Ebonmar Infiltrator a gish if her spells are comprehend languages, detect evil, disguise self, invisibility, knock, spider climb, and locate object?

I feel like a gish needs to combine spells and melee fighting in combat, whether the spells being used are buffs, debuffs, support, or ranged magical attacks. While you can use Invisibility to give yourself an advantage in combat, I presume you mean that Invisibility is only being used outside of combat and not to gain an advantage in it, and the other spells aren't doing anything to help you in combat.


EDIT: Instead of arguing with AMFV about everything (I will admit that I can't find the rule that initiators have to select first-level manoeuvres, so he's right there at least) I will instead post my damage calcs for both his build, at least what he posted of it, and mine. Let me know where I went wrong.

1) I’ll presume we’re both going Orc, since it’s got such a good STR bonus. I'll presume we both start at 18 STR (so 22 STR after the racial bonus)
2) I’ll assume our theoretical opponent has 20 AC. I’ll presume we both have a +1 greatsword.
3) I'll presume he went Shock Trooper at level 6, and will be doing full Power Attack.

Accuracy (AMFV's ubercharger)
6/1 BAB + 6 STR + 1 weapon + 2 charge
15/10

Damage (ubercharger)
2d6 + 9 (STR x 1.5) + 1 Weapon + 12 (Power Attack x 2)
29 damage

Average Damage (ubercharger)
0.75 x 29 + 0.5 x 29 = average 36.25 damage per round



Accuracy (Barb/Fighter build with Whirling Frenzy)
6/1 BAB + 8 STR + 1 weapon + 1 Weapon Focus – 2 Whirling Frenzy + 2 charge
16/16/11

Damage
2d6 + 8 x 1.5 STR + 1 weapon + 2 Weapon Spec
22 damage

Average damage
0.8 x 22 + 0.8 x 22 + 0.55 x 22 = average 47.3 damage per round

Obviously, I don't know all your feats that you want in your build. Let me know what I'm missing and if I got anything wrong in my calculations.

[AMFV]

I feel like a gish needs to combine spells and melee fighting in combat, whether the spells being used are buffs, debuffs, support, or ranged magical attacks. While you can use Invisibility to give yourself an advantage in combat, I presume you mean that Invisibility is only being used outside of combat and not to gain an advantage in it, and the other spells aren't doing anything to help you in combat.


EDIT: Instead of arguing with AMFV about everything (I will admit that I can't find the rule that initiators have to select first-level manoeuvres, so he's right there at least) I will instead post my damage calcs for both his build, at least what he posted of it, and mine. Let me know where I went wrong.

1) I’ll presume we’re both going Orc, since it’s got such a good STR bonus. I'll presume we both start at 18 STR (so 22 STR after the racial bonus)
2) I’ll assume our theoretical opponent has 20 AC. I’ll presume we both have a +1 greatsword.
3) I'll presume he went Shock Trooper at level 6, and will be doing full Power Attack.

Accuracy (AMFV's ubercharger)
6/1 BAB + 6 STR + 1 weapon + 2 charge
15/10

Damage (ubercharger)
2d6 + 9 (STR x 1.5) + 1 Weapon + 12 (Power Attack x 2)
29 damage

Average Damage (ubercharger)
0.75 x 29 + 0.5 x 29 = average 36.25 damage per round



Accuracy (Barb/Fighter build with Whirling Frenzy)
6/1 BAB + 8 STR + 1 weapon + 1 Weapon Focus – 2 Whirling Frenzy + 2 charge
16/16/11

Damage
2d6 + 8 x 1.5 STR + 1 weapon + 2 Weapon Spec
22 damage

Average damage
0.8 x 22 + 0.8 x 22 + 0.55 x 22 = average 47.3 damage per round

Obviously, I don't know all your feats that you want in your build. Let me know what I'm missing and if I got anything wrong in my calculations.

You're missing every single feat, I mentioned. You're missing the fact that you have an accuracy penalty at 6 and I don't. You can't calculate your chance of hitting as being the same when you are taking away from that for Power Attack. But I guess we'll play. According to Optimization by the numbers the average AC at CR 6 is 19 and the average HP is 69.12. Of course since the DM is picking intentionally the averages are likely to mislead. Let's take the maximums instead... The maximum AC you will see is 29, and the maximum HP is 133. Notably you are by your own calculations doing lower damage than the average CR 6 Monster has.

Why do you have 2 more Strength than I do? Why would you assume that I wouldn't buy a strength item? That's just disingenuous we are into absolutely bull**** stuff here. But let's actually calculate.

We'll take your AC 20 though.

Using the power attack calculator given the factors that you have presented your average damage at AC 20, subtracting 1 is 31ish. That's pretty decent, that's not enough to necessarily kill the average monster but you'll do good damage.

Also important to note that I have Rage also... So Strength would be the same.

So I would probably buy a +1 Valorous Greatsword for double damage on a charge. And I'd probably buy a +2 Belt of Giant Strength, so I might actually have lower Strength here, but we'll calculate it out.

So assuming that I start with 18 Strength, cause of course I would. My strength is going to be:

22 (Starting Orc at 18) + 4 (Rage) + 1 (Stat Adjustment, Sadly odd numbers) + 2 (Gauntlets of Ogre Power). That puts me at 29 Strength with no buffs. That is a +9. I'll alter your calculations to also have that +9 assuming that you would probably make the same choices in that regard. Since that is the fair assumption. Cause I'm assuming you'd also grab power gloves, since that's well within WBL. Now you have explicitly stated that you have a +1 Weapon. So we'll go with that. In a Mid OP environment you wouldn't probably want Valorous.

So we both have a to-hit bonus of:

+9 (For Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement). And you have an additional +1 for Weapon Focus. Now you're highest damage option is actually to take -1 on your PA rather than a big minus. At least according to Donjon's PA calculator which I will be using for this and assuming that it is generally accurate. I will probably have to calculate my own stuff since they don't actually factor in a lot of what I'm doing.

That gives you an attack line of (Including Power Attack, since you can't talk about Power Attack and Shock Trooper and then just ignore the advantage of Shock Trooper... COME ON MAN)

+17 and and +12. (Once you take off the optimal amount for PA (I'll also include full PA cause it'll be edifying here)... Including the charge bonus.

And that gives you a damage of

7 (2d6) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Power Attack) + 13 (9 * 1.5) Strength with an extra +2 for Weapon Specialization.

Your chance to hit AC 20 is 90% on the first hit (you have to roll better than a 3) and 65% on the second (you have to roll better than an 8) so your average damage will be 37.2 on a charge, that's respectable. And assuming you bought a valorous weapon that'd be 74.4 That's damned respectable that is not enough to GAURANTEE you're killing an enemy charge, but it's real close.

Now let's do me!

I have Punishing Stance (Cause why not)... I have Leap Attack (cause I said that was mandatory).

So my to-hit is +9 (Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Charge) + (6/1). No minuses because we have Shock Trooper. So we're taking those penalties to AC and hoping that Wall of Blades will save us, or the fact that we are actually gonna kill what we hit at CR 6.

So that leaves us with +18 and + 13. So first hit is a 2 up, for 95%. Second is a 7 up for 70%.

My damage per hit will be:

7 (2d6) + 18 (300% Power Attack from Leap Attack, we're eating the whole thing) + 3.5 (Punishing Stance) + 13 (Strength)

So without Valorous Weapon that would be 68.475 damage on a charging full attack. You're at 37.2. With a Valorous Weapon that's 136.95. The highest health in Optimization by the numbers at CR 6 is 133. So basically I am guaranteed to delete a monster with that charge. (Of course if the is optimizing then there might be tougher monsters, but point still stands.)


I wouldn't have done all this but you came out and did super disingenuous math making really negative assumptions about my build and ignoring things I'd said. And our AC is still probably manageable, we're only at a -6 to AC, so we actually might be okay on AC. But yeah, when you're calculating other people's stuff you want to make assumptions that they are not being idiots. That's not at all okay to do

Edit: And that's not the peak Ubercharger that's a build thrown together.

Edit 2: I Also probably would have taken Whirling Frenzy so that's not going to significantly alter the difference, actually would increase the gap between our builds significantly. Recalculated for Whirling Frenzy you are at 51.6 damage by my calculations and I am at 95.45. With Valorous that puts you at [/s]74.4[/s] 103 (EDIT: Was reading off the wrong column). (enough to erase an average enemy but not the toughest) and puts me at 190.9 (Way more than I need to delete the toughest enemies at CR 6 (although possibly not enough to delete optimized DM enemies.)

Edit 3: You'll note that when there's an option that both builds could take to their advantage I've given it to your build as well as mine.

[Sinner's Garden]

Related to this thread, it always bugs me when people say "martial." Like, the wizard can pick up a sword too. Someone without magic is a "muggle." And, for whatever its worth, muggles really shouldn't equal mages in performance. If you want to play a character that principally refuses to engage with the laws of physics, then you've basically made a cripple, and much in the same way I would give no special consideration to a character to began play in a wheelchair, I don't see why a character who refuses to use magic to his advantage deserves extra benefits and considerations for not engaging in the world in which he lives.

[AMFV]

Related to this thread, it always bugs me when people say "martial." Like, the wizard can pick up a sword too. Someone without magic is a "muggle." And, for whatever its worth, muggles really shouldn't equal mages in performance. If you want to play a character that principally refuses to engage with the laws of physics, then you've basically made a cripple, and much in the same way I would give no special consideration to a character to began play in a wheelchair, I don't see why a character who refuses to use magic to his advantage deserves extra benefits and considerations for not engaging in the world in which he lives.

Nobody has been advocating for that. Or has said it. Or has suggested it. People have been discussing builds that are better suited to not have caster levels. A Wizard can pick up a sword. But they are probably not going to be Ubercharging. Which we've just demonstrated the effectiveness of (even with mid op builds). Ubercharger is a build that usually doesn't have the levels to spare for gishing (also they're usually raging). Which is probably the main reason you wouldn't want to Gish.

The other reason being that "gishing" usually means that you aren't a very good caster, depending on what you're giving up, not being a very good caster might not be worth it.

Warshapers probably don't want to Gish, War Hulks definitely don't. Chain Trippers probably don't. Martial Initiators might, but they don't necessarily need to.

[liquidformat]

War Hulks definitely don't.

War Hulks can't gish, its not a matter of wanting to or not. Frenzied berserker or anything with rage that doesn't have runescarred berserker or CG rarely gish since its a pain to try and do so.

[AMFV]

War Hulks can't gish, its not a matter of wanting to or not. Frenzied berserker or anything with rage that doesn't have runescarred berserker or CG rarely gish since its a pain to try and do so.

What stops a War Hulk from Gishing? They can take levels in a class that grants spellcasting. "No Time To Think" only applies to skills. But yeah the principle reason why you wouldn't Gish is that you're getting better stuff from what you're taking than limited casting.

Edit: Actually Divine Power fixes probably your biggest problem as a War Hulk, not advancing your BAB, sounds like War Hulks would really want to Gish if they can.

[liquidformat]

What stops a War Hulk from Gishing? They can take levels in a class that grants spellcasting. "No Time To Think" only applies to skills. But yeah the principle reason why you wouldn't Gish is that you're getting better stuff from what you're taking than limited casting.

Edit: Actually Divine Power fixes probably your biggest problem as a War Hulk, not advancing your BAB, sounds like War Hulks would really want to Gish if they can.

hum weird, I thought it had expressly said you can't cast spells but you are correct.

[AMFV]

hum weird, I thought it had expressly said you can't cast spells but you are correct.

It would definitely make sense! I can understand that misunderstanding cause it's like a rule that would make sense for that. I hadn't thought about using Divine Power for that, but it's actually potentially a really good fix.

[Maat Mons]

Someone without magic is a "muggle."

I prefer the terms "mundane," "magically-challenged," or "loser."

[Troacctid]

Related to this thread, it always bugs me when people say "martial." Like, the wizard can pick up a sword too. Someone without magic is a "muggle."
"Martial" is the 4e term for it.

[pabelfly]

You're missing every single feat, I mentioned. You're missing the fact that you have an accuracy penalty at 6 and I don't. You can't calculate your chance of hitting as being the same when you are taking away from that for Power Attack. But I guess we'll play. According to Optimization by the numbers the average AC at CR 6 is 19 and the average HP is 69.12. Of course since the DM is picking intentionally the averages are likely to mislead. Let's take the maximums instead... The maximum AC you will see is 29, and the maximum HP is 133. Notably you are by your own calculations doing lower damage than the average CR 6 Monster has.

Why do you have 2 more Strength than I do? Why would you assume that I wouldn't buy a strength item? That's just disingenuous we are into absolutely bull**** stuff here. But let's actually calculate.

We'll take your AC 20 though.

Using the power attack calculator given the factors that you have presented your average damage at AC 20, subtracting 1 is 31ish. That's pretty decent, that's not enough to necessarily kill the average monster but you'll do good damage.

Also important to note that I have Rage also... So Strength would be the same.

So I would probably buy a +1 Valorous Greatsword for double damage on a charge. And I'd probably buy a +2 Belt of Giant Strength, so I might actually have lower Strength here, but we'll calculate it out.

So assuming that I start with 18 Strength, cause of course I would. My strength is going to be:

22 (Starting Orc at 18) + 4 (Rage) + 1 (Stat Adjustment, Sadly odd numbers) + 2 (Gauntlets of Ogre Power). That puts me at 29 Strength with no buffs. That is a +9. I'll alter your calculations to also have that +9 assuming that you would probably make the same choices in that regard. Since that is the fair assumption. Cause I'm assuming you'd also grab power gloves, since that's well within WBL. Now you have explicitly stated that you have a +1 Weapon. So we'll go with that. In a Mid OP environment you wouldn't probably want Valorous.

So we both have a to-hit bonus of:

+9 (For Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement). And you have an additional +1 for Weapon Focus. Now you're highest damage option is actually to take -1 on your PA rather than a big minus. At least according to Donjon's PA calculator which I will be using for this and assuming that it is generally accurate. I will probably have to calculate my own stuff since they don't actually factor in a lot of what I'm doing.

That gives you an attack line of (Including Power Attack, since you can't talk about Power Attack and Shock Trooper and then just ignore the advantage of Shock Trooper... COME ON MAN)

+17 and and +12. (Once you take off the optimal amount for PA (I'll also include full PA cause it'll be edifying here)... Including the charge bonus.

And that gives you a damage of

7 (2d6) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Power Attack) + 13 (9 * 1.5) Strength with an extra +2 for Weapon Specialization.

Your chance to hit AC 20 is 90% on the first hit (you have to roll better than a 3) and 65% on the second (you have to roll better than an 8) so your average damage will be 37.2 on a charge, that's respectable. And assuming you bought a valorous weapon that'd be 74.4 That's damned respectable that is not enough to GAURANTEE you're killing an enemy charge, but it's real close.

Now let's do me!

I have Punishing Stance (Cause why not)... I have Leap Attack (cause I said that was mandatory).

So my to-hit is +9 (Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Charge) + (6/1). No minuses because we have Shock Trooper. So we're taking those penalties to AC and hoping that Wall of Blades will save us, or the fact that we are actually gonna kill what we hit at CR 6.

So that leaves us with +18 and + 13. So first hit is a 2 up, for 95%. Second is a 7 up for 70%.

My damage per hit will be:

7 (2d6) + 18 (300% Power Attack from Leap Attack, we're eating the whole thing) + 3.5 (Punishing Stance) + 13 (Strength)

So without Valorous Weapon that would be 68.475 damage on a charging full attack. You're at 37.2. With a Valorous Weapon that's 136.95. The highest health in Optimization by the numbers at CR 6 is 133. So basically I am guaranteed to delete a monster with that charge. (Of course if the is optimizing then there might be tougher monsters, but point still stands.)


I wouldn't have done all this but you came out and did super disingenuous math making really negative assumptions about my build and ignoring things I'd said. And our AC is still probably manageable, we're only at a -6 to AC, so we actually might be okay on AC. But yeah, when you're calculating other people's stuff you want to make assumptions that they are not being idiots. That's not at all okay to do

Edit: And that's not the peak Ubercharger that's a build thrown together.

Edit 2: I Also probably would have taken Whirling Frenzy so that's not going to significantly alter the difference, actually would increase the gap between our builds significantly. Recalculated for Whirling Frenzy you are at 51.6 damage by my calculations and I am at 95.45. With Valorous that puts you at [/s]74.4[/s] 103 (EDIT: Was reading off the wrong column). (enough to erase an average enemy but not the toughest) and puts me at 190.9 (Way more than I need to delete the toughest enemies at CR 6 (although possibly not enough to delete optimized DM enemies.)

Edit 3: You'll note that when there's an option that both builds could take to their advantage I've given it to your build as well as mine.

Post your actual class selection and feat list and when you expect to get your feats. How do you get Leap Attack and Shock Trooper by level 6? Leap Attack is minimum fifth, due to skill point requirement, Shock Trooper is minimum level 6. You want two levels of Fighter and two Barbarian before 5th so when you pick Warblade at level 5 you get second-level manoeuvres, so how do you get both feats before level 6?

I don't have an accuracy penalty (or bonus damage from Power Attack, for that matter) because I'm not using Power Attack.

I have 4 more STR than you because I'm using Whirling Frenzy since I can use it multiple times a day (why I got Extra Rage, for the consistency). Keep in mind you don't actually want to use Rage because you are picking up "Moment of Perfect Mind" manoeuvre requires a Concentration check, but Rage won't let you make Concentration check. Let me know what you want to do here when you're posting your feat list.

[AMFV]

Post your actual class selection and feat list and when you expect to get your feats. How do you get Leap Attack and Shock Trooper by level 6? Leap Attack is minimum fifth, due to skill point requirement, Shock Trooper is minimum level 6. You want two levels of Fighter and two Barbarian before 5th so when you pick Warblade at level 5 you get second-level manoeuvres, so how do you get both feats before level 6?

First off your example WAS at level 6. So let's clear that up. You gave me an example of your character at level 6. Did you just want the free level? I mean I guess we could take off some that damage I'd only be doing 1.75ish times more than you. And also that build was an example of what you might do. Do you want me to build an actual optimized Ubercharger? I mean if you want to take this serious I will shred your damage totals. What ruleset are we using? Is LA buyback in effect. XP Penalties?



I don't have an accuracy penalty (or bonus damage from Power Attack, for that matter) because I'm not using Power Attack.

That makes sense, that's why my example version of your character was doing more damage, according to the power attack calculator you should have been taking a -1



I have 4 more STR than you because I'm using Whirling Frenzy since I can use it multiple times a day (why I got Extra Rage, for the consistency). Keep in mind you don't actually want to use Rage because you are picking up "Moment of Perfect Mind" manoeuvre requires a Concentration check, but Rage won't let you make Concentration check. Let me know what you want to do here when you're posting your feat list.

I didn't actually say I was picking MoPM. I said "that's a good one to pick up." You asked why a non-ToB would dip and that was the last example I provided. I have provided most of feat list. Also again why would i not take whirling Frenzy? I don't really think there's any reason to discuss this, you've been arguing in poor faith the whole time. Why should I spend time doing a build when you are arguing in such poor faith?

Edit: If you'd like me to build a character for the purposes of this we can start a different thread. Without Leap Attack I still significantly outdamage you. It's like 45ish, and I'd get another feat in there to play with. But yes, if you would like to actually compare builds instead of ranting about a build that was not an actual build like "Hey here's an example of a mid OP character" then we can do that.

[Darg]

Part of the reason minionmancy gets crazy is that DMs attribute the full xp to parties using calling spells. You're supposed to split xp between all the characters that contributed, not just the PCs. I'm not saying minionmancy isn't strong, just that if exploited can really mess up the party in the long term.

[AMFV]

Part of the reason minionmancy gets crazy is that DMs attribute the full xp to parties using calling spells. You're supposed to split xp between all the characters that contributed, not just the PCs. I'm not saying minionmancy isn't strong, just that if exploited can really mess up the party in the long term.

That's not really the major issue with it. There are a lot of metagame issues that make it a problem. It slows the game down. DMs don't like it. It's not actually a fun gameplay loop. And it's actually a lot harder to solve problems with minions in play. Like yeah a bunch of skeletons sounds great till a dragon breaths on them.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Oh, we're talking TO? What "well built Gish" beats a D2 Crusader at melee damage? What "well built Gish" beats a Hulking Hurler? There's a reason I picked that as my example, bud. Optimized Hulking Hurler is going to outdamage almost anything in the game. 5th level spells ain't gonna beat that man. And with the ways for melee to pick up "gishing" you're like at 5th to 6th level spells tops.

Edit: A "Well Built" Gish is solidly Medium Tier PO. There's nothing wrong with that, you could play that at almost any table, but you're not doing infinite damage. Or an arbitrarily high number of damage.

If you're arbitrarily deciding gishes only get 5th lvl spells. That would fall under lower end power level. You're comparing TO to PO to make your own argument look better. Which if that's the case there's no real point to this if you limit the scale to only things that make your own argument look good. That's amusing, but that's also not reality. *shrug* And Hurlers and D2 Crusaders are basically buzzwords at this point, there's 50+ other old builds you could bring up, but I see you didn't. Because most of them prove my point. Rage Mage (one of said older builds, which you'd know about if you knew more than just the buzzword names of some builds)? Hmm that's a caster that does infinity damage. By.. melee? Whoa. That would make it a gish. See? It becomes pointless. Now, if you lower the scale from "builds nobody actually plays" to incredibly high power builds that actually have seen a table....... the point stands. Properly built gishes aren't losing out on 9th lvl spells. You just sacrificed some mental stat for physical and your spell/feat choice line you into melee damage.

Clerics that focus on self buffing, and melee damage fall under that.. certain Sorc builds that dip for defensive oriented power while not losing strength... RKV builds that aren't breaking the game etc.
Personally I'm a fan of Divine caster Gishes.

[AMFV]

If you're arbitrarily deciding gishes only get 5th lvl spells.

So you're just being disingenuous and deliberately ignoring that this was the original post:


There are so many prestige classes that can add ok to decent spellcasting with minimal loss of martial capabilities or continue a progression from a dip, so one could easily turn any fighter into a divine, arcane, or psionic gish

There are exactly three classes that gives you full casting under those circumstances. Divine Crusaders who are INCREDIBLY limited in their casting. Ur-Priests, who have a crapload of roleplay baggage and are a known power-gaming trick, and Sublime Chords, who are incredibly hard to qualify for (and require prior casting). Knight of the Weave gives you extremely limited 6ths. Nar Demonbinder gives you limited, but also requires prior casting. Everything else that you could go into after being a martial with limited loss of melee capability only gets you 5ths.

So the question is "Do I want to really jack up my martial abilities or potentially get limited casting" and both answers can be valid there. But there are definitely builds that value the martial stuff over limited casting, especially if you have FULL casters already covering down on that.



That would fall under lower end power level. You're comparing TO to PO to make your own argument look better.

I'm not, you have misunderstood my argument could you reread it please. Potentially slower. Because you are responding to something that I have not said.


Which if that's the case there's no real point to this if you limit the scale to only things that make your own argument look good. That's amusing, but that's also not reality. *shrug*

Are you arguing that MINIONMANCY isn't TO? Come on dude, be fricking serious here.


And Hurlers and D2 Crusaders are basically buzzwords at this point, there's 50+ other old builds you could bring up, but I see you didn't. Because most of them prove my point. Rage Mage much? Hmm that's a caster that does infinity damage. By.. melee?

They don't actually, because your point was "Martials have no TO stuff" so basically to disprove that all I have to do is show comparable TO builds. Since you were doing Minionmancy which is absofrickinglutely TO, don't even front man. Yes, Casters have TO builds too. I'm confused because that isn't something I was arguing against. Only that if you were talking PO you have to compare PO to PO. Not Minionmancy which is TO, to PO.


Rage Mage much?

What the **** does that even mean? Like what are you even saying there. That's incomprehensible. Again maybe reread your own post.


Whoa. That would make it a gish. See? It becomes pointless. Now, if you lower the scale from "builds nobody actually plays" to incredibly high power builds that actually have seen a table....... the point stands. Properly built gishes aren't losing out on 9th lvl spells. You just sacrificed some mental stat for physical and your spell/feat choice line you into melee damage.

Yes, and Caster Gishes are not the subject of this thread, reread the OP. 9ths and +16 BAB is not what we're talking here. We're talking Fighter that takes Knight of the Weave. Or Divine Crusader. Those were the examples given.



Clerics that focus on self buffing, and melee damage fall under that.. certain Sorc builds that dip for defensive oriented power while not losing strength... RKV builds that aren't breaking the game etc.
Personally I'm a fan of Divine caster Gishes.

Yes and those are AS YOU SAY. Caster Gishes. Caster Gishes are not the subject of this thread. If you're asking why build an Ubercharger instead of a Sorcadin? There are quite a few reasons. A sorcadin has less offensive power unless you're doing something like minionmancy. Maybe you want to play something different. Maybe you don't want to be spending half your actions being an above average (but not top) martial and the other half being a **** caster.

[Maat Mons]

It might be worth considering Maho-Tsukai. With 5 levels in either Duskblade, Hexblade, or Sohei, you can take 1 level of Maho-Tsukai and jump straight to 3rd level spells using the Spell Conversion class feature.

[AMFV]

It might be worth considering Maho-Tsukai. With 5 levels in either Duskblade, Hexblade, or Sohei, you can take 1 level of Maho-Tsukai and jump straight to 3rd level spells using the Spell Conversion class feature.

That's not standard 3.5 right? That's like L5R?

Edit: Nevermind it's OA but it requires you be playin' with Taint... Which is probably bad.

[Gnaeus]

Are you arguing that MINIONMANCY isn't TO? Come on dude, be fricking serious here.



They don't actually, because your point was "Martials have no TO stuff" so basically to disprove that all I have to do is show comparable TO builds. Since you were doing Minionmancy which is absofrickinglutely TO, don't even front man. Yes, Casters have TO builds too. I'm confused because that isn't something I was arguing against. Only that if you were talking PO you have to compare PO to PO. Not Minionmancy which is TO, to PO.

TO means theoretical optimization. Stuff you can't use in play. Every single bit of minionmancy I have suggested (except for Stone Golems, which I just never had a caster bother with, and Mindrape) is stuff I have used in play at tables. Planar binding, check. Skeletal dragon, check. Cast dominate, check. Gate, check. If I'm NOT using them, its less likely that I can't use them than that I won't use them because someone is playing a martial and I don't want them to feel bad.

High op means stuff that is difficult to achieve, requiring advanced game knowledge, multiple moving parts, and planning. For example, most decent martial builds. High op doesn't mean better, it means using a high degree of system mastery. High opp is like knowing that your caster needs to be an outsider so that you can take alter self into a dwarf ancestor for +20 NA, an interaction with multiple elements that arent obvious in how they connect that combine to a sum greater than the parts.

Low op means easy to do. It means something you can pull off your power list without dumpster diving and realize it is useful without a game guide or being a 3.5 expert. Animate Dead is solid low op. Core. Obvious in its utility. Planar binding is slightly higher but still low op. Maybe low-mid opp on the grounds that you have to know to take 2 spells, the second being a magic circle. Still core. You might need to make some knowledge religion checks or glance at a guide to know what the best thing to summon is. The fact that Planar Binding is better than an entire fighter doesn't mean it is high op, it means fighters are bad. Everything I have suggested is available to a caster on an optimization level with a fighter who just realized 2handed style is better than sword and board. The same low opp sorcerer might take Gate and Meteor Swarm at 18.


Oh, we're talking TO? What "well built Gish" beats a D2 Crusader at melee damage? What "well built Gish" beats a Hulking Hurler? There's a reason I picked that as my example, bud. Optimized Hulking Hurler is going to outdamage almost anything in the game. 5th level spells ain't gonna beat that man. And with the ways for melee to pick up "gishing" you're like at 5th to 6th level spells tops.

Edit: A "Well Built" Gish is solidly Medium Tier PO. There's nothing wrong with that, you could play that at almost any table, but you're not doing infinite damage. Or an arbitrarily high number of damage.

A well built gish could be medium or high op. It can, however, create a golem, or planar bind, or twice its hd in undead without changing that. And having a crazy high damage number doesn't make you more effective as a slot in your party than a character with a lower but still solid damage output, who can also drop a web or a solid fog to shut down a room full of damage monsters, or summon another fighter, or dimension door next to the boss. What you most want in your fighter type is control, followed by damage, with a big side of "can solve their own problems if their schtick gets blocked". I would usually rather have a tripper than a hurler in my party, because he is locking down a room. But he isn't locking down a room better than a druid + his pet + a bunch of walls and summons and other spell effects.


Ah - ok yes, if full minion-mancy is viable, then it's pretty much the apex of power. But IME, it isn't, not even in high-op games, for two reasons:
1) Practical time constraints. More minions means combat takes longer. A battle of "the five PCs and their 500 minions, vs several hundred foes" is going to take longer than anyone actually wants to play out. So even in a "bring the cheese" game there's always been a formal or informal limit.
2) Without a limit (which doesn't exist RAW) it becomes "arbitrarily large army vs arbitrarily large army" and not even possible to resolve by the rules. I mean, you mention "arbitrarily large number of bound and allied outsiders" right there.

The rules do also have a few choke-point factors on bringing massive armies, such as the fact that Wish is the only way to reach fully locked demiplanes, and it only brings 1 creature / CL.

But you know what? Let's toss all that aside, because it's moot. The key fact is that "arbitrary number" means it doesn't matter how many casters you have, because even with one caster you have an arbitrarily large number of minions. Controlled undead are the only ones limited per caster, all the others you mention are only limited by time and/or money, and since they're unlimited they dwarf the controlled undead into irrelevance when fully exploited.

It kinda suggest that the ideal party in a no-limits environment is "one caster who can generate arbitrarily many minions" and the rest of the party is specialized toward dealing with any situations that would prevent the minions being used, because if the minions are used then they win.

Arbitrary doesn't mean infinite, it means as many as you want. The exact number of fighters that helps you. You are casting Wish and you can only bring 1 creature/level, thats 5 PCs and 12 flunkies if you want them?

That last bit is a touch relevant, but it doesn't say you should bring a martial. Casters are vastly better than martials at problem solving. In the party I mentioned earlier, Wiz, Cleric, Druid, Beguiler, which martial is problem solving better than any of them? They all have different minions they bring to the table, and different skill sets to boot, especially if the Wizard chose to ban illusion or enchantment because there is a Beguiler there, and leave Abjuration to the Cleric and Druid. The Cleric and Druid can fill melee roles innately if they prefer. If they are supercrazymartially inclined the cleric could take a level or 2 of swordsage or crusader and grab some of that cheap TOB goodness and still bring an absurd level more utility than a muggle build.


Part of the reason minionmancy gets crazy is that DMs attribute the full xp to parties using calling spells. You're supposed to split xp between all the characters that contributed, not just the PCs. I'm not saying minionmancy isn't strong, just that if exploited can really mess up the party in the long term.

So, assuming a standard cheese tolerance so we aren't using xp tricks to add xp.....

If on this encounter you don't NEED all the minions, you don't USE all the minions. I don't see why you would cut the clerics undead mount in for a split but not the ubercharger's mount. But regardless, if you don't want your 3 Devas in the mix, tell them to stand by.

On the other hand, if you have a muggle, is he going to be happy skipping his share of the loot because we didn't need giant stack of damage dice in this encounter? No party I have ever seen is splitting rewards by contribution, but if they aren't, it isn't the pets that are leaching, it is the fighter.

[Darg]

So, assuming a standard cheese tolerance so we aren't using xp tricks to add xp.....

If on this encounter you don't NEED all the minions, you don't USE all the minions. I don't see why you would cut the clerics undead mount in for a split but not the ubercharger's mount. But regardless, if you don't want your 3 Devas in the mix, tell them to stand by.

On the other hand, if you have a muggle, is he going to be happy skipping his share of the loot because we didn't need giant stack of damage dice in this encounter? No party I have ever seen is splitting rewards by contribution, but if they are, it isn't the pets that are leaching, it is the fighter.

It's not about splitting rewards based on contribution, xp rewards are split based on who is in the party. Unlike summons, called creatures aren't a spell effect. They can act in any fashion they so choose as long as it fulfills the terms of the contract. If the DM is following only your orders and not giving the creatures personality and an independent thinking mind, that's on them. If the deva notices nice loot and decides to take it because it would help their cause, they can. A lot of times people boil binding and ally into being summon monster when it is so much more complex and varied than people make it out to be. Of course spells when used in their most permissive state are simply stronger than anything else. While a deva IS better than a fighter of equal level, the argument is dismissive of the costs that could be involved because they are unquantifiable. Saying these spells are worth more than a fighter is like saying you'll always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship. It might work because plot demands it, but it's not a guarantee.

[Gnaeus]

It's not about splitting rewards based on contribution, xp rewards are split based on who is in the party. Unlike summons, called creatures aren't a spell effect. They can act in any fashion they so choose as long as it fulfills the terms of the contract. If the DM is following only your orders and not giving the creatures personality and an independent thinking mind, that's on them. If the deva notices nice loot and decides to take it because it would help their cause, they can. A lot of times people boil binding and ally into being summon monster when it is so much more complex and varied than people make it out to be. Of course spells when used in their most permissive state are simply stronger than anything else. While a deva IS better than a fighter of equal level, the argument is dismissive of the costs that could be involved because they are unquantifiable. Saying these spells are worth more than a fighter is like saying you'll always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship. It might work because plot demands it, but it's not a guarantee.

In general, you are the ones writing the contract. You can write in the contract what their orders are. Yes, if you do a terrible job writing a contract some devas could steal your $. But a LG Trumpet Archon probably can't. Or a golem or a dragon skeleton or the meatshield you dominated, or the undead you rebuked. The Ravid or the Hellcat don't care about your stupid human gold. And thats without even considering the actual summons, or the druids pet. Or the biggest ? of all, planar ally, which generally gets you a pretty compliant ally since you are both members of your god's team but is kind of a DM choice on what you get.

Its less like you will always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship, than that a ship with sails and motor and a crew of oarsmen is always better than hiring one big dude with oars who will get paid even when the motor is going, even though it is obviously better than him, and who is going to feel bad if he isn't rowing. In any game I have been in, I would rather have planar binding than a fighter. But that argument is unnecessary. I would always rather have a CoDzilla who can pretend to be a fighter and in some cases better than a fighter but who isn't going to be outclassed when I cast summon monster 3 times or make some undead or any of the other fighter equivalents we can utilize. Like, in the most extreme examples, a wall. There is a significantly non 0 number of encounters where a muggle is flat out worse than a wall.

The muggle is never truly competing with planar binding. He is competing with someone who can cast spells that are individually comparable to a fighter, but who also has a bunch more tools at his disposal than the muggle ever will. And who may, build depending, be only slightly worse than he is at being a fighter. Or better, depending on whether being a fighter includes solving all those unusual combat circumstance issues that muggles have to solve with WBL.

[Darg]

In general, you are the ones writing the contract. You can write in the contract what their orders are. Yes, if you do a terrible job writing a contract some devas could steal your $. But a LG Trumpet Archon probably can't. Or a golem or a dragon skeleton or the meatshield you dominated, or the undead you rebuked. The Ravid or the Hellcat don't care about your stupid human gold. And thats without even considering the actual summons, or the druids pet. Or the biggest ? of all, planar ally, which generally gets you a pretty compliant ally since you are both members of your god's team but is kind of a DM choice on what you get.

Its less like you will always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship, than that a ship with sails and motor and a crew of oarsmen is always better than hiring one big dude with oars who will get paid even when the motor is going, even though it is obviously better than him, and who is going to feel bad if he isn't rowing. In any game I have been in, I would rather have planar binding than a fighter. But that argument is unnecessary. I would always rather have a CoDzilla who can pretend to be a fighter and in some cases better than a fighter but who isn't going to be outclassed when I cast summon monster 3 times or make some undead or any of the other fighter equivalents we can utilize. Like, in the most extreme examples, a wall. There is a significantly non 0 number of encounters where a muggle is flat out worse than a wall.

Your analogy makes no sense. It'd be more accurate to say that the engine may or may not come with gas and the crew may or may not be too sloshed to understand a word you try to tell them. Either way, if CoDzilla isn't being challenged through their weaknesses of course it's better than a fighter. If you summon monster 3 times and plow through your daily allotment of encounters within the duration without having your full-round casts be interrupted, then yeah it's going to be super effective. You're comparing only the strengths of one while acknowledging only the weaknesses of the other. Binding and Ally are reliant on the whim of the DM, just like CoDzilla is reliant on the whim of the DM not to just dispel your persisted spells. A fighter has feats while a CoDzilla has to rely on raw stats and vulnerable spells. If you force a binding on a creature then maybe they don't want to be there and willingly fail a dismissal save just to spite you. I doubt we'll see eye to eye on the issues presented. My initial argument was about how the existence of characters can alter a reward when part of the encounter (not every creature is a character so your undead mount doesn't necessarily qualify, but that deva sure does).

[Gnaeus]

Your analogy makes no sense. It'd be more accurate to say that the engine may or may not come with gas and the crew may or may not be too sloshed to understand a word you try to tell them.

Thats when you use the sails. Or the repulsorlift. The fighter is only ever one solution. Who is worse than most comparable individual solutions. But always worse than the combination of all the solutions that replace him. Every mid op caster, and even most low op ones, carries a bunch of different solutions.


Either way, if CoDzilla isn't being challenged through their weaknesses of course it's better than a fighter. Binding and Ally are reliant on the whim of the DM, just like CoDzilla is reliant on the whim of the DM not to just dispel your persisted spells. A fighter has feats while a CoDzilla has to rely on raw stats and vulnerable spells.

And if they are dispelled you are only a 3/4 bab character with some combat feats and a couple of undead giants and full tier 1 casting except for the 3 or 4 spells you had persisted. Oh wait, thats still better than a fighter. I'd rather shell out for some pearls of power than an entire fighter worth of gear loadout. Honestly the druid probably doesn't even stop chewing on your face. And thats assuming a low op animal druid, not the druid on an optimization level with some of the fighter types listed, using aberration wildshape to produce really broken effects, or planar shepherd to be outsider of choice.


If you summon monster 3 times and plow through your daily allotment of encounters within the duration without having your full-round casts be interrupted, then yeah it's going to be super effective.

And there are lots of ways to do that. And if you can't, it isn't the reason why you are better than a fighter, it is ONE reason you are better than a fighter. Its like something the druid can use if he doesn't feel like eating your face was a good option for some reason. Like maybe there are threats in multiple parts of the battlefield. Or the enemies have some really nasty AOE effect he doesn't want to be near. Maybe LoS issues. And none of his dozen or so high level spell options are quite the right fit. It is literally every druid's second best way to replace a fighter.


You're comparing only the strengths of one while acknowledging only the weaknesses of the other.

No, I am comparing characters who can obsolete other PCs with tiny fractions of their power, with PCs who can be made obsolete with tiny fractions of their power.


If you force a binding on a creature then maybe they don't want to be there and willingly fail a dismissal save just to spite you.

And the ways around that are as complicated as telling them not to in their contract or summoning creatures who match your goals.


I doubt we'll see eye to eye on the issues presented. My initial argument was about how the existence of characters can alter a reward when part of the encounter (not every creature is a character so your undead mount doesn't necessarily qualify, but that deva sure does).

And my response was that the fighter is taking his share of the reward even when he does not contribute. So the deva, who you admitted is often better than a fighter, has to be a bigger drain on usable resources than the fighter.

[AMFV]

TO means theoretical optimization. Stuff you can't use in play. Every single bit of minionmancy I have suggested (except for Stone Golems, which I just never had a caster bother with, and Mindrape) is stuff I have used in play at tables. Planar binding, check. Skeletal dragon, check. Cast dominate, check. Gate, check. If I'm NOT using them, its less likely that I can't use them than that I won't use them because someone is playing a martial and I don't want them to feel bad.

Those are 17th level options man. Those don't come up at most tables, most of the time. At 17th level casters have really solidified their position. But most games aren't super high level games unless you're playing in a really unusual environment.



High op means stuff that is difficult to achieve, requiring advanced game knowledge, multiple moving parts, and planning. For example, most decent martial builds. High op doesn't mean better, it means using a high degree of system mastery. High opp is like knowing that your caster needs to be an outsider so that you can take alter self into a dwarf ancestor for +20 NA, an interaction with multiple elements that arent obvious in how they connect that combine to a sum greater than the parts.

That is not the commonly used definition. Typically Op refers to both the effort and the power level involved



Low op means easy to do. It means something you can pull off your power list without dumpster diving and realize it is useful without a game guide or being a 3.5 expert. Animate Dead is solid low op. Core. Obvious in its utility. Planar binding is slightly higher but still low op. Maybe low-mid opp on the grounds that you have to know to take 2 spells, the second being a magic circle. Still core. You might need to make some knowledge religion checks or glance at a guide to know what the best thing to summon is. The fact that Planar Binding is better than an entire fighter doesn't mean it is high op, it means fighters are bad. Everything I have suggested is available to a caster on an optimization level with a fighter who just realized 2handed style is better than sword and board. The same low opp sorcerer might take Gate and Meteor Swarm at 18.

Assuming that Planar binding doesn't have it's RAW drawbacks is the high OP part.

[icefractal]

I guess my issue with minionmancy as PO is that while it's definitely possible in practice (I've done it as a player and GM'd for people using it), it requires either formal or informal limits on how many minions are allowed and how they'll be used, which will be table-specific, and that makes it hard to discuss in the context of "purely optimization".

Because without some kind of limit, it quickly goes into TO territory. Didn't somebody here (years back) talk about wearing a cloak where each individual strand of thread was a polymorphed Ice Assassin, thus yielding thousands of actions (and contingent spells) at once? Fun concept, but not by any means PO.

[Sinner's Garden]

Didn't somebody here (years back) talk about wearing a cloak where each individual strand of thread was a polymorphed Ice Assassin, thus yielding thousands of actions (and contingent spells) at once?

Tippy once made a joke that he'd still be dangerous if you stripped him to his underwear and confiscated his spellbooks because he had polymoprhed red dragon great wyrm ice assassins to make the fabric threads.

[Gnaeus]

Those are 17th level options man. Those don't come up at most tables, most of the time. At 17th level casters have really solidified their position. But most games aren't super high level games unless you're playing in a really unusual environment. .

Gate is a 17th level option. Dominate comes on line at 9. Animate at 5. Lesser PB and PA at 7. Druids have a pet at 1 and summons become decent at 4. Minionmancy probably doesn't invalidate fighters until 5, barring a party with a couple of druids. Although you could still have a battle cleric at 1, a functioning sorcadin at 3, etc.




That is not the commonly used definition. Typically Op refers to both the effort and the power level involved

1. Yes it is. There is a power level component, but only in the sense that some things aren't obvious with a high level of game mastery. A low opp fighter, lacking game mastery, might think TWF is better than THF because it gives more attacks, without thinking through strength and a half, extra weapon cost, feat cost etc. Optimization is a combination of system mastery and planning.

2. But I can see why you want to use it the other way, as a synonym for powerful. Because if you say Minionmancy is powerful, I agree. Thats my point. You compare equivalent optimization (actual definition) because what you are comparing is how powerful a fighter or wizard is in the hands of a Newb, or a forum expert who wrote a guide. You don't generally need to compare a fighter built with a guide with a wizard played by a newb picking spells because they sound cool. But using your definition, Minionmancy is higher op than fighters. And in fact, replacing higher op with more powerful, you would be right. Wizards are more powerful than fighters, thats the issue. High opp is not a bad term, suggesting that things don't see play. High opp only means you compare veterans with veterans, like you compare casual players with casual players at low opp.



Assuming that Planar binding doesn't have it's RAW drawbacks is the high OP part.

1. I'm not the one suggesting planar binding isn't usable RAW. Nothing I have suggested in any way violates RAW. Violating RAW is in fact arguing that you CAN'T have 30 planar bound minions if you want them.

2. OP is a player side thing. Every wizard taking planar binding is the same level of op. How the DM interprets the rules has little to do with player optimization.


I guess my issue with minionmancy as PO is that while it's definitely possible in practice (I've done it as a player and GM'd for people using it), it requires either formal or informal limits on how many minions are allowed and how they'll be used, which will be table-specific, and that makes it hard to discuss in the context of "purely optimization".

OK, granted, but you don't generally need to exceed whatever informal limit your table may have to be able to do the muggles job better. And its difficult to disentangle tables where there is an issue on the administrative side with the tables who restrict minionmancy because its rude to the fighter, where if you didn't have a fighter, you would be allowed more minions. Honestly, in a lot of ways, the minions that are the best analogs to martials take the least time. I could probably run 3 large elementals or golems or devils (move up and slam) in the time it takes me to figure out one turn for an angel who is essentially a caster in his own right. And I've never been at a table that banned casting summons spells, which are probably the most time consuming (pick a monster, pull out its image, input a stat block). I wouldn't say that the existence of houserules makes minionmancy TO. I would say the variability of houserules suggests we should discuss raw, with the same * I made upthread that significant changes in the rules change the game, and changing the game changes what is good in the game. I will agree that if you are in timed play (you have 2 hours ooc to finish this room, like in a con tournament) that minionmancy is way worse.

[AMFV]

Gate is a 17th level option. Dominate comes on line at 9. Animate at 5. Lesser PB and PA at 7. Druids have a pet at 1 and summons become decent at 4. Minionmancy probably doesn't invalidate fighters until 5, barring a party with a couple of druids. Although you could still have a battle cleric at 1, a functioning sorcadin at 3, etc.


Dominate isn't permanent minionmancy and has significant drawbacks. PB, lesser and greater has the drawback that it is entirely DM dependent, "unreasonable requests are always refused" and there's no definition for what that is. So a DM can do whatever they want there and still be well within RAW. Druid pets are a problem, they're not going to make the druid better at combat that an optimized build Martial, who will have ToB classes or other options. Now the Druid being able to Wildshape, continue to cast, and have a pet is a problem. But the pet itself isn't that big a problem.

I would argue that minionmancy doesn't invalidate at all typically, because it's not typically used. Or if it is used, it's used at tables where martials are much higher optimization.

How is your Sorcadin "functioning" at level 3, dude? That build don't come online at level 3. You've got first level spells, a level late. You are weaker than a ToB Class would be, the only nice thing you have is that you're not going to be failing saves. And you've just lost a bunch of HP. What 1st level spell are you using to be competitive with a 3rd Level Warblade? Or a 3rd Level Crusader? Or even a 3rd Level Swordsage? That build doesn't come online till around level 8. At best. And I'm a huge fan of Sorcadins.

You can't have a Battle Cleric at 1, because you don't have any of your buffing spells at 1. Righteous Might and Divine Power are what makes your battle cleric viable. Maybe with Flaws you could do a tripping Cleric at 1... But you don't have the feats to make the work as is, or the stats, even if you're human. What is your "functional" battle Cleric build at level 1? (Of course almost no build is "functional" at level 1. So that's a big deal. But you're not going to be even in the same ballpark as martial characters until you get Divine Power and Righteous Might. And that's early teens. Well level 9.



1. Yes it is. There is a power level component, but only in the sense that some things aren't obvious with a high level of game mastery. A low opp fighter, lacking game mastery, might think TWF is better than THF because it gives more attacks, without thinking through strength and a half, extra weapon cost, feat cost etc. Optimization is a combination of system mastery and planning.

No it is typically used as a combination of things. Are you arguing that book diving to look up the right monsters to summon for you PB isn't exactly as intensive as me looking up guides for commonly used martial build tools? Like if you want your summoning to be half-decent you're looking through probably at least three guides. You're looking at what spells monsters get, what special abilities they get... and which ones are decent in combat. That's actually three separate guides (I think the Summoners handbook has most of it, but it's a lot more reading).

So now to make your summoner function you have to read through books.



2. But I can see why you want to use it the other way, as a synonym for powerful. Because if you say Minionmancy is powerful, I agree. Thats my point. You compare equivalent optimization (actual definition) because what you are comparing is how powerful a fighter or wizard is in the hands of a Newb, or a forum expert who wrote a guide. You don't generally need to compare a fighter built with a guide with a wizard played by a newb picking spells because they sound cool. But using your definition, Minionmancy is higher op than fighters. And in fact, replacing higher op with more powerful, you would be right. Wizards are more powerful than fighters, thats the issue. High opp is not a bad term, suggesting that things don't see play. High opp only means you compare veterans with veterans, like you compare casual players with casual players at low opp.

High Op isn't a bad term. My point is that you can't compare "Wizard built with a guide" to "Fighter built by an idiot". Also a Wizard built with a guide is likely to be less disruptive, since they'll know that Polymorph is too powerful for most tables, and that summoning is too powerful for most tables... I mean both Treantmonk and LogicNinja's guides suggest what spells are too good for your wizard to be using.



1. I'm not the one suggesting planar binding isn't usable RAW. Nothing I have suggested in any way violates RAW. Violating RAW is in fact arguing that you CAN'T have 30 planar bound minions if you want them.

Planar binding is entirely dependent on your DM, so you can't evaluate it. That's the problem. You're pretending that a reasonable thing to do is to give yourself the best interpretation. Which is absolute horsecrap. That's bad optimization right there.



2. OP is a player side thing. Every wizard taking planar binding is the same level of op. How the DM interprets the rules has little to do with player optimization.


BEING AWARE OF WHICH THINGS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE A DM ISSUE IS OPTIMIZATION. That's a feature in all the old guides. Treantmonk's, LogicNinja, every Person_Man guide talks about it. Knowing which rules are ambiguous unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

Unless you know exactly what the DM is going to define as unreasonable you can't rate that. Because the DM can literally shut down any request he doesn't like. That makes it not a reliable tool unless you happen to know what the DM is likely to do with it.

[vasilidor]

I played a level 20 character without spellcasting before, more than once. first was 10 levels of Fighter, 10 levels of Dragon Slayer from the Dragon book in the early 3.0 days. I thought it was cool, with cool features. Second was a Barbarian. level 20 barbarian, started at level 10. Both were played under different DMs. The Barbarian was able to get a few small spells from feats in the second game that helped a lot. I mean, night and day difference just from having a few spells like see Invisibility, resist elements, that sort of thing. I could not use them while raging, but I could cast them before raging and would in scenarios where I thought it would make sense to do so.

Then, later on, I played a fighter in Pathfinder. It was the first character I did without casting in a long while. The DM was free with the money, so I had level 20 gear by around level 9. So it is hard to say how good that guy would have been, as I had items casting spells for me.

Essentially, I don't really see a reason to not gish in some fashion, be it buying stuff to do the casting for you or taking levels in a casting class.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The way I see it, he spends his time rewriting the rules of the universe and bending them to his will. She hits stuff with a stick.

Why is she taking up resources in the party, again?

[Darg]

I played a level 20 character without spellcasting before, more than once. first was 10 levels of Fighter, 10 levels of Dragon Slayer from the Dragon book in the early 3.0 days. I thought it was cool, with cool features. Second was a Barbarian. level 20 barbarian, started at level 10. Both were played under different DMs. The Barbarian was able to get a few small spells from feats in the second game that helped a lot. I mean, night and day difference just from having a few spells like see Invisibility, resist elements, that sort of thing. I could not use them while raging, but I could cast them before raging and would in scenarios where I thought it would make sense to do so.

Then, later on, I played a fighter in Pathfinder. It was the first character I did without casting in a long while. The DM was free with the money, so I had level 20 gear by around level 9. So it is hard to say how good that guy would have been, as I had items casting spells for me.

Essentially, I don't really see a reason to not gish in some fashion, be it buying stuff to do the casting for you or taking levels in a casting class.

A lot of utility for mundane classes is tied into their ability to buy potions. It covers a lot of what they lack. Like your resist energy. See invisibility is covered by the caster pointing out the direction and distance and someone throws a dust of appearance or someone casts glitterdust. That said, personally I think the prices of scrolls and potions should be swapped, but that's neither here nor there.

[Pugwampy]

So my question is: when is it beneficial NOT to take levels in a spellcasting (or equivalent system) class?


1. When the players are newby dewby dews
2 When you playing from lvl 1
3 When you dont understand how magic works
4 When you have spellcaster in the group who knows his stuff
5. when you want to enjoy the bone crunching damage rolls of Magic Great axe
6 When you dont want to purposely weaken your character splitting levels between 2 classes . There is a mile wide difference between a lvl 10 Fighter and his buddy who is lvl 5 spell chucker and lvl 5 Clod.
7. When you actually want to be a good team player .

[Gnaeus]

Dominate isn't permanent minionmancy and has significant drawbacks. PB, lesser and greater has the drawback that it is entirely DM dependent, "unreasonable requests are always refused" and there's no definition for what that is. So a DM can do whatever they want there and still be well within RAW. Druid pets are a problem, they're not going to make the druid better at combat that an optimized build Martial, who will have ToB classes or other options. Now the Druid being able to Wildshape, continue to cast, and have a pet is a problem. But the pet itself isn't that big a problem.

Why are we comparing the low opp pet every druid gets to an optimized build martial? I'd rather have a healing druid + a riding dog than a badly built martial. Venomfire fleshrakers get compared to optimized build martials. Dominate lasts for 7 days when it comes on line, so plenty of time to dominate a couple bruisers and walk them into a dungeon. Or turn monsters in the dungeon into your pets. Druid+wildshape+casting+pet is only a problem in the sense that it makes martials look bad. So, problem for your argument? Yes. Problem for the game? no. It doesn't make wizards and clerics look bad.

In the early days, when ToB was new, before I had ever read a guide, I once played a druid. In a party with a swashbuckler, a samurai who decided samurai was OP and rerolled a monk, and a rogue. We had spell compendium, but I wasn't using venomfire or aberrant wildshape or anything we would now call high op, just your basic bear with a bear summoning bears. After a while, the DM would just copy every monster. My pet and I would fight one, the other 3 pcs would fight the other. A majority of the time I would finish first and help them out.


I would argue that minionmancy doesn't invalidate at all typically, because it's not typically used. Or if it is used, it's used at tables where martials are much higher optimization.

You can argue that green is red. Reality is clearly no bar to your arguing.


How is your Sorcadin "functioning" at level 3, dude? That build don't come online at level 3. You've got first level spells, a level late. You are weaker than a ToB Class would be, the only nice thing you have is that you're not going to be failing saves. And you've just lost a bunch of HP. What 1st level spell are you using to be competitive with a 3rd Level Warblade? Or a 3rd Level Crusader? Or even a 3rd Level Swordsage? That build doesn't come online till around level 8. At best. And I'm a huge fan of Sorcadins.

No, it isn't better than a warblade 3. ToB classes are notably front heavy. It IS better than a fighter 3. Honestly, even compared with ToB classes, you are disregarding the effects of just HAVING a spell list. A couple of useful first level wands are well within your abilities at 3. I'll just sit in my plate and shield with my battleaxe with a wand chamber holding my wand of Power Word Pain. (3, you have lost 3 hp, the difference between 5.5 and 2.5, which is probably less important than the extra +1 will. And not failing saves is commonly the difference between useful and useless, or alive or dead)


You can't have a Battle Cleric at 1, because you don't have any of your buffing spells at 1. Righteous Might and Divine Power are what makes your battle cleric viable. Maybe with Flaws you could do a tripping Cleric at 1... But you don't have the feats to make the work as is, or the stats, even if you're human. What is your "functional" battle Cleric build at level 1? (Of course almost no build is "functional" at level 1. So that's a big deal. But you're not going to be even in the same ballpark as martial characters until you get Divine Power and Righteous Might. And that's early teens. Well level 9.

The battle cleric is down 1 bab 2 hp and 1 feat from a fighter. He has +2 will save, which is important in not being made useless in encounters as early as level 1. He has 2 domains, maybe a war domain for martial weapon proficiency and weapon focus and a devotion. THEN he has spells. And turn attempts which may only be for powering his devotion. I would rather have a melee cleric in my party than a melee fighter at any level. Its not an optimized build for casting, but its more optimal than having a non caster.




No it is typically used as a combination of things. Are you arguing that book diving to look up the right monsters to summon for you PB isn't exactly as intensive as me looking up guides for commonly used martial build tools? Like if you want your summoning to be half-decent you're looking through probably at least three guides. You're looking at what spells monsters get, what special abilities they get... and which ones are decent in combat. That's actually three separate guides (I think the Summoners handbook has most of it, but it's a lot more reading).

So now to make your summoner function you have to read through books.

Honestly, you don't. You only have to be smart enough to know that summoning monsters is useful. You have a list. You pick the top monster. Figure out what it can do. If it sucks, don't use it again. Pick the next monster. Repeat. Other options are even easier. Buy some onyx. The next time you fight some big monster, after we kill it, make it your pet. 0 system mastery required, only planning is buying some onyx, or going back to town to get some onyx.

I don't think a low opp wizard is turning people into a war troll. I think he is turning them into the inferior giant. You don't need a guide to say: can I turn him into a giant? or a giant octopus? or a huge bird?

Making a martial, on the other hand, has very few opportunities for fighters who make bad choices. I can make the worst wizard in the world, and be trash for 6 levels, Decide Animate Dead and Polymorph seem cool at level 7 and be awesome. You can make a fighter with cool sounding feats like Toughness, Weapon Focus and Two Weapon fighting and maybe suck less than the wizard for a couple of levels. What choice are you going to make at level 8 to turn your trash build around? Thats what low opp means. You AREN'T planning a build, you are taking options that seem good, maybe some mix of traps and actually good choices. A low opp wizard might lose half of his 40+ spells to bad picks, and still have 20 spells, some of which are individually better than a fighter. Make a good fighter with half of his feats silly. If I, an experienced player, am sitting at the table with a badly built wizard. I can buy him a few scrolls and ask him to scribe them. If he is a badly built CoD, even easier. With a Sorcerer or Favored Soul I might have to wait until they level to make a spell suggestion. If I'm next to a bad fighter, I can't even fix him. I may be able to ask the DM for a rebuild, but even then, in most groups I have been in, "Hey, I bought you this scroll of Haste, would you scribe it?" is taken a lot better than "Hey, your fighter is unfixable. Would you mind if I threw out all your feats? Your choices are Archer, Charger or Tripper. Actually, we are crossing out the word Fighter and replacing it with Warblade."




High Op isn't a bad term. My point is that you can't compare "Wizard built with a guide" to "Fighter built by an idiot". Also a Wizard built with a guide is likely to be less disruptive, since they'll know that Polymorph is too powerful for most tables, and that summoning is too powerful for most tables... I mean both Treantmonk and LogicNinja's guides suggest what spells are too good for your wizard to be using..

1. I'm suggesting obvious core options. You are suggesting builds. A 12 year old who has never played the game but is intelligent and adaptive and playing a full caster can usually outperform a veteran with a martial build.
2. Yes, because they are concerned with showing up fighters. The problem is that muggles are so bad, they force casters to play suboptimally just to keep the table running. You can solve the problem by not taking your best spells. Or you can solve the problem by not taking a fighter with you. The party is mechanically better if you chose #2.


Planar binding is entirely dependent on your DM, so you can't evaluate it. That's the problem. You're pretending that a reasonable thing to do is to give yourself the best interpretation. Which is absolute horsecrap. That's bad optimization right there.

BEING AWARE OF WHICH THINGS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE A DM ISSUE IS OPTIMIZATION. That's a feature in all the old guides. Treantmonk's, LogicNinja, every Person_Man guide talks about it. Knowing which rules are ambiguous [IS PART OF PRACTICAL OPTIMIZATION. Like if we're talking like builds for build contests or messing around, then loophole away. But if we're talking "I am actually bringing this to a table" knowing "Hey this thing is entirely dependent on how the DM treats one sentence" is pretty ****ing important.

If it works, that one spell singlehandedly outclasses muggles. If it doesn't, you have to look at the other ways to do it, like undead creation, mind control, constructs, etc. And nothing I have suggested is a loophole.

All you need to be wildly better than a fighter is to use monsters that like to fight things, or use monsters against things they like to fight. Suggesting that the spell can't be used to compel a service, when it clearly states that it can, is the intellectually dishonest side of that argument. No, I don't think you could use planar binding to order an angel to burn down an orphanage. But ordering it to protect your party while you fight dark cultists in the temple of evil is pretty much exactly what the spell is for. And the more obviously fighter replacing the thing is, the less likely you are going to have problems. The angels, which means the casters, tend to have both intelligence and morals. An int 6 earth elemental isn't terribly likely to object to smashing things that attack you in the dungeon, and even less likely to be able to seek revenge afterwords.


Unless you know exactly what the DM is going to define as unreasonable you can't rate that. Because the DM can literally shut down any request he doesn't like. That makes it not a reliable tool unless you happen to know what the DM is likely to do with it.

I have been at a lot more tables that allow open core or core +1 than ones that ban or effective ban planar binding. Heck, IME, ToB is banned more than Planar Binding. So since we are looking at what DMs might ban, we'll just take our core options, shall we? Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm not talking about Ice Assassin. Everything on my side of the argument (other than Sorcadin's wand) is core.

[AMFV]

I have been at a lot more tables that allow open core or core +1 than ones that ban or effective ban planar binding. Heck, IME, ToB is banned more than Planar Binding. So since we are looking at what DMs might ban, we'll just take our core options, shall we? Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm not talking about Ice Assassin. Everything on my side of the argument (other than Sorcadin's wand) is core.

Let's take ToB here as an example. Iron Heart Surge... how strong is it? Can you tell me? Well if you were being honest you'd say "It depends on how the DM rules it" because it requires rulings. Same with Planar Binding. Its not that it's "likely to banned" something I've never suggested it's that "the power level of the spell depends heavily on things that the DM is expected to rule on in the context of the spell." The DM deciding if it works is literally RAW.

Edit: This is the problem with Schrodinger's Wizard in general, and that's what you're doing here. You're assuming extremely favorable rulings.

[vasilidor]

I have been thinking that you don't have to Gish as much with Spheres of Might, but that is 3rd party Pathfinder stuff. In a low difficulty campaign it might be fun to not Gish. The problem there is you need a mage who knows what they are doing or for certain monsters to not show up.

[Darg]

I have been thinking that you don't have to Gish as much with Spheres of Might, but that is 3rd party Pathfinder stuff. In a low difficulty campaign it might be fun to not Gish. The problem there is you need a mage who knows what they are doing or for certain monsters to not show up.

Or a setup that allows characters to prepare. Honestly, nearly everything casters can do mundane characters can eventually accomplish with some preparation, investigative foreknowledge, and time. That last one is the largest advantage spellcasters have over mundane characters. Spells allow you to compress what might require a lot of time and effort into a spell cast or two. The biggest poster child of this is teleport, literally compressing what could normally take weeks or months into literal seconds. Who needs a caravan to carry all of your supplies, equipment, and loot when you can just teleport home whenever you want?

[Gnaeus]

Let's take ToB here as an example. Iron Heart Surge... how strong is it? Can you tell me? Well if you were being honest you'd say "It depends on how the DM rules it" because it requires rulings. Same with Planar Binding. Its not that it's "likely to banned" something I've never suggested it's that "the power level of the spell depends heavily on things that the DM is expected to rule on in the context of the spell." The DM deciding if it works is literally RAW.

Edit: This is the problem with Schrodinger's Wizard in general, and that's what you're doing here. You're assuming extremely favorable rulings.

I like your analogy. It is unclear exactly how IHS works, but the most conservative interpretation is still a bag of awesome. Planar binding is similar. I am not assuming even moderately favorable rulings. I am assuming that the spell works and that the DM is not soft banning it by calling all tasks unreasonable or automatically sending instadeath kill teams. I am not assuming using it as a wish factory or for binding a nightmare so you can astrally project at level 9. I am assuming that most anyone can use it to call up a couple of low int bruisers when they need, like elementals. That a typical good aligned party can get angels to help them fight demons, and a typical evil aligned party can call fiends in exchange for evil acts. Can you bind 30 outsiders? Yes. Am I assuming that? No. One or 2 is commonly more than enough. The most I ever summoned was 4, when the DM told us the next part of the adventure was tough and I called a hound archon to protect each good party member for a period not exceeding 3 days while we stormed a bastion of corruption. Was it better than a fighter? Yes. Can I see any reason that was an unreasonable demand or one justifying an angelic death squad? No. And as that character was a celestial bloodline sorcerer, I was backing them up with angelic summons in every fight via Summon Monster. So, would I rather have that character in any good aligned party I have ever seen than any martial I have ever seen? Absolutely.



Edit: This is the problem with Schrodinger's Wizard in general, and that's what you're doing here. This is nothing like Schrodinger's wizard. Schrodinger's wizard is assuming that you have the entire tier 1 spell list at your fingertips ready to go at a moments notice. I am assuming that a wizard has a small handful of spells in his book and is employing one or more of them at any given time. This is as close to Schrodinger's wizard as assuming that a melee fighter took power attack. I'm not saying that an individual caster has to have all the spells you can use to replace a fighter. He won't. (although a couple of methods are better than a fighter by themselves). But a party of casters, like the Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Beguiler I mentioned upthread, pretty much will. Cleric has undead and planar ally and summons. Druid has pet, commanded animals and summons. Beguiler has mind control and illusions. Wizard has summons and binding and maybe undead or enchantment or illusion or familiar depending on build. Cleric or Wizard could also have constructs if desired. Cleric or druid can also step into a fighter role if they want. And they all have non-fighter contributions to the party as well, which the typical muggle does not have.

[Darg]

I like your analogy. It is unclear exactly how IHS works, but the most conservative interpretation is still a bag of awesome. Planar binding is similar. I am not assuming even moderately favorable rulings. I am assuming that the spell works and that the DM is not soft banning it by calling all tasks unreasonable or automatically sending instadeath kill teams. I am not assuming using it as a wish factory or for binding a nightmare so you can astrally project at level 9. I am assuming that most anyone can use it to call up a couple of low int bruisers when they need, like elementals. That a typical good aligned party can get angels to help them fight demons, and a typical evil aligned party can call fiends in exchange for evil acts. Can you bind 30 outsiders? Yes. Am I assuming that? No. One or 2 is commonly more than enough. The most I ever summoned was 4, when the DM told us the next part of the adventure was tough and I called a hound archon to protect each good party member for a period not exceeding 3 days while we stormed a bastion of corruption. Was it better than a fighter? Yes. Can I see any reason that was an unreasonable demand or one justifying an angelic death squad? No. And as that character was a celestial bloodline sorcerer, I was backing them up with angelic summons in every fight via Summon Monster. So, would I rather have that character in any good aligned party I have ever seen than any martial I have ever seen? Absolutely.

Let's put it this way: you've got yourself another character in the party and are capable of punching above your weight class in terms of fighting strength. In DM terms, you've boosted the EPL of your party while the EL remains the same. You've added what was determined by WotC to be equivalent to an 11th level character to the party to a 9th or 10th level party. I'd argue an 11th level fighter could be just as good if not better than the hound archon with their magic items and available wealth. It's the same thing with calling a trumpet archon at 11th. A 20th ECL character carrying the party. Yes, you can call these creatures. Yes, they can make difficult or outright impossible fights doable, but at the same time if you had the fighter in the party you wouldn't be engaging in those kinds of encounters in the first place. And the rewards for such taking such a power boost must be commensurate with the actual contribution. In the trumpets case, you've increased your EPL by 2. Thus dropping the encounter difficulty by at least one step and possibly 2.