This question again? Really?

[Os1ris09]

So I know how 3.5 spellcasters that get full casting and versatility are better than a straight fighter. But how do you show that they are just from text instead of application?

Reason I ask is because I got into a debate with my DM on how the ToB gave a fresh breath to melee oriented characters and how it isn't overpowered and he believes that it is. I tried to tell him that spell casters such as the druid,cleric,wizard,sorcerer,archivist, and maybe the artificer to an extent are more powerful than any fighter,swashbuckler,ranger,paladin, etc. with equal optimization and he still doesn't agree with me.

[Pink]

If a person is stubborn about something, not a whole lot you can do about it. People aren't necessarily as logical as we'd like to believe we are, even with silly things like games.

[faceroll]

Well, ask him to come up with a problem, then ask for source books and any house rules regarding specific spells (polymorph any object, shivering touch, how illusions work, etc), then build a druid/cleric/wizard of the lowest possible level that can bypass the problem.

[AslanCross]

Spells all scale with level in some way: range, damage, duration, etc. Martial maneuvers do not. Mountain Hammer will forever deal 2d6 damage.

Spells are far more versatile and can accomplish anything that nonmagical classes can do. Maneuvers deal damage. With the exception of White Raven and a few boosts, most maneuvers consist of dealing damage.

[dextercorvia]

Ask him which one of the fighter's bonus feats allow him to step across the universe, give himself a +6 on all of his saves, take an extra standard or full round action (at any time), make him unable to be surprised, double his movement speed, delay someone trying to teleport to his location, etc. Then ask him what a fighter is good at. The answer should be damaging stuff. Show him that wizards or other full casters can do that, too.

[Jarian]

While the above suggestions might (might. People can be really stubborn when they want to be) make your DM reconsider his stance on things, it's just as likely to make him tell you to roll a commoner if you want to optimize something to the point that it's "better than a fighter". No, I don't know where this mentality comes from, but it happens. All too often, really.

A better solution, I would think, would be to work with what you've been given - maybe after handing your DM a bullet point list of the things wizards can do, then a simple, nonconfrontational question about how a fighter is supposed to compete.

[DragoonWraith]

If he brings up the spells/day limitation, have him tell you how many spells/day the Wizard actually gets at, say, level 13 (answer: 26). Then show how you can defeat an entire encounter using just one of these each. Your 7th level spell can do it. Your two 6th level spells can do it. Your three 5th level spells can do it. Your four 4th level spells can do it. Your 3rd level spells are going to have a hard time, but can still probably do more than the average 13th level Fighter.

The average recommended adventuring day is 4 encounters. If you really aren't careful, you might burn four spells at each - 16 spells. You still have 10 in reserve, and unless you're an idiot at least one or two will still be capable of single-handedly ending encounters.

If he's still not convinced, point out Teleport. Greater, if you like. Or hell, just Rope Trick.

[Ravens_cry]

This question is stupid. Yes, Wizards and other Full casters are more versatile then Fighters. But in most games, it doesn't really matter, As long as everyone is having fun, none of this Tier BS is important.
If swinging a big piece of metal is your kind of game, more power to ya.
If making the universe your feminine canine is how you have fun, good for you.
This is D&D. This is roleplaying.
If you're grinning, you're winning.

[PId6]

it's just as likely to make him tell you to roll a commoner if you want to optimize something to the point that it's "better than a fighter".

And that's when you bust out Chicken-infested!

[DragoonWraith]

Except if the DM is arbitrarily and without full understanding of the situation banning a very well written and fun book, it makes sense for a player to try to explain things. Like that Tome of Battle is by-far the most balanced book written for 3.5. Or that the Player's Handbook was the least balanced book for 3.5. Or how Martial Adepts can't even come close to the tricks spellcasters can pull.

[Vaynor]

Tell him about the druid. Is he familiar with the fighter? Ok, the druid gets one of those. Is he familiar with the wizard? They get spells almost as powerful as that. Is he familiar with large, dangerous creatures? Druids get to be those while they cast spells.

Fighters get Power Attack and Weapon Focus. I think it's obvious enough.

[dextercorvia]

A lot of people who think ToB is overpowered have only really seen it in arena fights. PvP it makes a big difference.

[Doc Roc]

A lot of people who think ToB is overpowered have only really seen it in arena fights. PvP it makes a big difference.

Then they've seen the wrong arena fights. Win rates for ToB against Casters in ToS are... not great.

[PId6]

Then they've seen the wrong arena fights. Win rates for ToB against Casters in ToS are... not great.

Maybe you should start allowing Iron Heart Surge then? I'm sure the win rates would get better if martial adepts are allowed to Surge away the opposition.

[ZeroNumerous]

Maybe you should start allowing Iron Heart Surge then? I'm sure the win rates would get better if martial adepts are allowed to Surge away the opposition.

Or the Sun. Or the planet. Or gravity. Or even Surge away magic itself.

[balistafreak]

I'm not sure that's a measure of the power of ToB or the hilariously ambiguous wording of Iron Heart Surge.

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not sure that's a measure of the power of ToB or the hilariously ambiguous wording of Iron Heart Surge.

Or the measure of a tired old meme, because IHS does not work that way.

[PId6]

Or the measure of a tired old meme, because IHS does not work that way.

I Surge away your pessimism.

[Another_Poet]

Instead of arguing with him, I would just ask him if he would let you do a ToB character for just a few sessions. Promise that after, say, 3 sessions if he still believes you are OP you will retire the character (with suitable segue) and bring in a character using the usual source books he allows.

In general, seeing is believing. Two sessions with a ToB character and he won't find anything to gripe about. They fit in nicely.

ap

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Instead of arguing with him, I would just ask him if he would let you do a ToB character for just a few sessions. Promise that after, say, 3 sessions if he still believes you are OP you will retire the character (with suitable segue) and bring in a character using the usual source books he allows.

In general, seeing is believing. Two sessions with a ToB character and he won't find anything to gripe about. They fit in nicely.

ap

They fit in nicely unless your group is incredibly low-op. Then again, Druids don't fit nicely in incredibly low-op groups, either.

Which leads me to believe that you should test-play a ToB character and get a buddy to play a Druid. Have the Druid one-up you every step of the way. This way you're showing how ToB isn't broken without taking away anyone else's spotlight.

[balistafreak]

Or the measure of a tired old meme, because IHS does not work that way.

You define "effect or other condition" and "duration" then. While they appear all over the SRD, they are never fully defined themselves.

That's two words that have no RAW translation into a D&D term. Admittedly, there's a list of conditions, but then that gets even more preposterous - now you can IHS away an effect that makes you unconscious, because you by all that is said in the "unconscious" entry technically do not lose your actions. Better yet, IHS away a grapple condition. The list goes on...

And all because the defined parameters for IHS are unfortunately quite undefined themselves.

In general, seeing is believing. Two sessions with a ToB character and he won't find anything to gripe about. They fit in nicely.

Only if the table is at least moderately optimized. If you've got Weapon Specializing Fighters and healbot Clerics, ToB will rip them a new one and rightfully be called overpowered for the group.

[Ravens_cry]

You define "effect or other condition" and "duration" then. While they appear all over the SRD, they are never fully defined themselves.

Condition is defined, with a glossary.

[PId6]

Condition is defined, with a glossary.

But "Effect" is not.

[sofawall]

Key difference between Warblades and fighters. Warblades have a much higher optimization floor, despite having a similar (but slightly lower) ceiling.

Similar to Druids having a very high floor, and wizards having one of the lowest floors ever printed, despite also having arguably the highest ceiling. Certainly higher than Druid, anyway.

[Vaynor]

I'd like to point out that "death" is a defined condition and technically does not hinder the use of maneuvers.

So you don't even need to take the word "effect" liberally, the "condition" part already applies directly to death.

[olentu]

I'd like to point out that "death" is a defined condition and technically does not hinder the use of maneuvers.

Well aside from the possible unconsciousness it does not really hinder anything does it so why bother removing it.

[Vaynor]

Well aside from the possible unconsciousness it does not really hinder anything does it so why bother removing it.

Meh, no healing can be a bit annoying. Also technically you're only unconscious at -1 to -9 hp.

[olentu]

Meh, no healing can be a bit annoying. Also technically you're only unconscious at -1 to -9 hp.

Eh I was talking about the assertion that some make being that one always has at the least 0 nonlethal damage which was of course why I said possible unconsciousness.

[Vaynor]

Oh, yes, nonlethal damage could do that. But then all you'd need to do is IHS again to remove the unconsciousness (which only makes you helpless, as "knocked out" is not a defined condition). You'd probably want to IHS out of unconsciousness first though, that way you could recover IHS to get rid of death.

[ZeroNumerous]

Condition is defined, with a glossary.

See, that opens a whole new can of worms. I.E: Pick up Diehard, get knocked to -4 and use IHS. You then IHS away Dying.

What if I'm a ghost? Can I IHS away Incorporeality?

If I'm a tiny weak birdling being blown around by a strong wind, can I IHS the Blown Away condition?

Will tearing your eyes out(and thus making you Blinded) allow you to IHS away the Blinded condition or magically regrow your eyes?