Post/Author/DateTime	Post
greedo99 08-14-06, 12:21 AM	I'm sad....after reading tome of battle, and reading the Swordsage and the Warblade, is there any use for a fighter now? Can a straight fighter compete with either of them?
scienceman47 08-14-06, 12:24 AM	No. And we are done.
Cadfan 08-14-06, 12:33 AM	Yes, I can imagine the need for a straight fighter. The fighter will have higher AC, thanks to plate mail, and therefore tank better. The fighter can match the warblade's HP by spending one feat, if he wants to. The warblade's maneuvers, while good, are generally standard actions, while the fighter is the king of the full round attack, and will therefore have better damage output. The fighter has less stat spread. There are plenty of good feats the warblade will never have time to get. The warblade, if he intends to actually use his maneuvers, has to replenish them every couple rounds by spending a round doing only a standard attack, while the fighter continues his full attacks. The core only fighter is dead, but he's been dead for a long time. The fighter who utilizes Complete Warrior and PHBII is doing just fine.
malisteen 08-14-06, 12:45 AM	1) There is still the same need for fighter that there ever was: two good bonus feats in two levels. Seriously, what else did power-minded people use fighter for anyway? If anything, Martial Adept and Martial Stance as fighter bonus feats make fighter dips potentially more useful, and in potentially more builds, then ever before, and certainly nothing in ToB can replace dips in fighter. 2) But what if you want to play a fighter? Well, that was never an optimal decision, and remains just as valid as it ever did as a roleplay decision. If anything, the feats mentioned above improve the monoclass fighter. As a simple matter, the fighter does a better impression of a Warblade (martial adept abilities) then the Warblade does of a fighter (feats? what feats?) 3) Any concept that requires a lot of feats, say an armored two weapon fighting soldier, or a chain tripper, or even a role-play motivated character who has to be able to shoot a bow respectably and fight from a horse and sword & board melee and use an exotic weapon or two (boomerang anyone? I'm in a link mindset lately) can be represented much more aptly by a fighter then by any of the ToB classes. I'm playing a monoclassed character right now, who's gimmick (heavily armored twin-fighting bastard sword master) really just can't be pulled off by any other single class (admittedly it's a terrible gimmick, but it's what I wanted to do, and I didn't want to multiclass). So, to recap, if you need feats more then abilities, then you want fighter AND Tome of Battle makes fighter better then it was AND it doesn't matter that ToB classes are better then monoclass fighter because every other class is better then monoclass fighter AND fighter isn't made obsolete because it is still an essential dip in any non-caster build that likes feats (ie, most of them), and that's the only thing fighter was ever really good for anyway. AND, didn't we already have this discussion? (not 'we' specifically, just 'we' in general) Watch out, monoclassed fighter, because as if you weren't killed by Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Psywar, Hexblade, Soulborn, Totemist, Duskblade, or Knight, the addition of yet three more better martial base classes then you is sure to put the nail in your coffin! Nobody will play you now! :P Seriously, stop worrying about the fighter, and start rejoicing that you can finally play a melee character that remains relevant all the way to high levels without super-specializing in a single gimmick. And if you already think you had that (who am I to argue, I just repeat what I'm told ;)) then instead rejoice in three new way-cool classes that should be a blast to play, and a boatload of new Cool Moves (tm) that almost any martial class can make some use of. :cool:
Sharaloth 08-14-06, 12:50 AM	Having no access to the Tome of Battle, and no idea of the actual mechanics behind those classes (only what i've read on these boards), I can't give you a good answer. I can however say this: The fighter's been the whipping boy of these boards forever, and the abilities, advantages and especially disadvantages brought up and overanalyzed to death. There have been numerous fighter 'fixes', none of which have at all caught my interest, either because they violate the flavor of the fighter (the intent behind a martially skilled class that relies on tactics, strength of arms, breadth of options and allies) or are just downright insane. They say that Fighters are useless in high-end games. I've seen a Fighter in a high-level game mow down equally high-leveled opposition like wheat, laugh in the face of certain-doom monsters that ate CoDzillas for breakfast, and even take out VERY intelligently played spellcasters so fast the GM cried (figuratively, I'm sure he was crying on the inside, beneath his 'you just took out my epic-level super-caster in two rounds you SOB' glower). Like most things in this game, it depends on who is playing the fighter in question. Can a straight Fighter compete with a Warblade or a Swordsage? Probably (as in: In most likelyhood, yes, the fighter will compete rather well, but I have no personal experience to back that up). Until I have the time to playtest it out (I won't, I leave that to those without lives or whose job it is) my answer will remain probably. Might as well ask if a Rogue can compete with a Beguiler (or a sorcerer with a Warmage, or Cleric with a Favored Soul, etc, etc). The issue, for the moment, remains wide open.
__DnD4Life__ 08-14-06, 01:03 AM	It is still the best way to qualify for Eldrich Knight. Also, if you need a feat, you know what class to take. The full bab is also nice for dipping.
Encard 08-14-06, 02:40 AM	Fighter was never a very powerful class. As has been said, the need for a fighter is the same as ever: as a dip for bonus feats, a quick dip for entry into certain classes, and a class to use for super-feat-intensive builds. The ToB classes just make playing a frontliner much more viable in other cases.
VonRichthofen 08-14-06, 03:37 AM	xxxx
Imaginary_Zero 08-14-06, 04:41 AM	Power-wise, I don't know. However, in terms of flavor, fighters are simply boring in comparison to the new martial class options from ToB. (Of course, I've always thought fighters were dull, so I am gratefully to ToB for making it possible to play a warrior with interesting combat choices for a change.)
babysamurai 08-14-06, 05:05 AM	The fighters fine – leave the kid alone. …As my Aunt used to say.
nastynate 08-14-06, 06:53 AM	If you plan on using the ToB, I doubt anyone would bother with a fighter, but that's no big deal. A war blade fills the same role in your party, and he looks sexy doing it too. The fighter is currently used primarily for small dip of one, two, or four levels, and it will probably still be. Nothing really changes since the publication of the ToB, in regard to the fighter; but in regard to his role in the party, ToB makes things much better than they were. -Peace-
Dragonteuthis 08-14-06, 07:09 AM	My experience is very, very similar to Sharaloth's. Some of my players don't like spellcasters, so they typically play barbarians, fighters, and rangers. I've seen one player take a Fighter into epic levels, and I was always trying to find challenges based on his character, along with the party cleric. He didn't do anything game-breaking, understand. It was just that he was so hard to hit and did so much damage that I was always challenged to have combat last more than one or two rounds. Fighters can definitely be optimized very well. The problem is that people overlook the fighter's supremacy in options, and then go pick something with shiny class features, because they don't wish to expend the effort that good feat selection takes.
babysamurai 08-14-06, 07:12 AM	Fighters can definitely be optimized very well. The problem is that people overlook the fighter's supremacy in options, and then go pick something with shiny class features, because they don't wish to expend the effort that good feat selection takes. Couldn’t agree more.
Esponer 08-14-06, 08:23 AM	Yes, there's still need for the fighter. After having built a few recently, I can confirm that they can be absolutely nasty. I'd still suggest a revision of the fighter class, and more feat options are certainly required, but the warblade doesn't (quite) make the fighter obsolete, at least no more than the cleric already managed. Warblades are somewhat different beasts.
2nd Ed Paladin 08-14-06, 08:54 AM	Fighters can definitely be optimized very well. The problem is that people overlook the fighter's supremacy in options, and then go pick something with shiny class features, because they don't wish to expend the effort that good feat selection takes. Couldn’t agree more. What they said.
VonRichthofen 08-14-06, 09:14 AM	I doubted the need for fighters when first I saw the Warblade class, but I have reconsidered since then. We tend to play in a high-power Birthright setting with high stat builds for the blooded scions we portrait. I such a context, a Warblade is possibly more powerful than a fighter and can take most of his roles. In a standard D&D setting with a 28-32 points buy, the fighter suffers from less MAD and is still the only class that can pull some really nasty feat combos. Alltough... people may argue that there are few feat chains that can replace four bonus attacks in one round (at highest attack bonus) or the ability to make two full attack sequences (just random examples), I tend to agree that the fighter still has his role to play. If you build him as a martial adept killer, it might still be possible to bring down even a warblade in one-o-one, but that remains to be seen in actual game. The only issue I have is with the Warblade's ability to regain his maneuvers with a standard action (during combat!), but that's an other story..
babysamurai 08-14-06, 09:20 AM	In a standard D&D setting with a 28-32 points buy, the fighter suffers from less MAD and is still the only class that can pull some really nasty feat combos. Go for 25 Point Buy (or elite array), as the game was designed to be played, and you will see the Fighter is exactly where he/she should be.
VonRichthofen 08-14-06, 09:26 AM	Is there an official statement saying "D&D was intended for 25 points buy"? I thought it was supposed to work well first and foremost in a range from 25-32 points, but I might be wrong here.
babysamurai 08-14-06, 09:33 AM	Is there an official statement saying "D&D was intended for 25 points buy"? I thought it was supposed to work well first and foremost in a range from 25-32 points, but I might be wrong here. I forget where, I’m sure a lovely person on these boards will know, but I’m sure WotC has stated that CR’s and feats etc are designed around PC’s having the elite array/25 PB. Anything else skews the system. As Nom so eloquently put it “I prefer a calibrated game.”
Clawhound 08-14-06, 09:35 AM	For the Class Challenge run the other week, I put together a fighter. He did fairly well. I surprised a few folks with his tactics. Most folks just assume that a fighter is dumb. If you play a fighter that way, its a lousy class. If you play smart, and know how to take advantage of rules, the class can rock. The class's main problem was always the limited feat selection. Feat/spell interaction has been poor. This is slowly being rectified.
KirkBb 08-14-06, 09:39 AM	There is still a use for the fighter, just the other day I whipped up a human fighter build that goes all of the way to level 20, and I still didn't get in all of the feats I wanted to, here, I'll post it: Level 1: Abberration blood, Inhuman Reach, Starspawn, Exotic Weapon Profeciency(Spiked Chain) Flaw: Shaky Level 2:Combat Reflexes level 3:Dodge level 4: Combat Expertise level 5:- level 6:Mobility, Spring Attack level 7:- level 8:Whirlwind Attack level 9:power attack level 10: Cleave level 11:- level 12: Great Cleave, Weapon Focus level 13:- level 14:Weapon Specialization level 15: Greater weapon Focus level 16: Greater Weapon Specialization. level 17:- level 18:Melee weapon Mastery, Weapon Supremecy level 19:- level 20:Driving attack
Dolo 08-14-06, 10:38 AM	The nice thing about the fighter that most people are forgetting is that hey can use feats to get some of this stuff from ToB to enhance what they do. I am already incorprating several stances and manuvers into my fighter and it is helping immensly with my combats, being able to use my main weapon in grapples makes me smile.
Templario 08-14-06, 11:16 AM	I've heard some maneuvers of these classes can be bought as talents. Is it true?
batmanjr 08-14-06, 11:31 AM	All these martial classes that are presented in the ever increasing WOTC library are typically one or two trick ponies, that are built to do those one or two things. The fighter is a no trick pony that has the openendedness to be whatever trick you want. It's all in the feats you take, the weapons you use and the armor you wear.
the_narrator 08-14-06, 02:14 PM	The Fighter is still a useful class in any sort of martial situation...until he fights a Rust Monster or Sundermonkey.
heretic888 08-14-06, 02:15 PM	The fighter will have higher AC, thanks to plate mail. . . Eh, that's debatable as far as the Swordsage is concerned. Beggining at second level, a Swordsage can add his full Wisdom bonus to AC on top of light armor and, like the Monk's Wisdom bonus, it applies to both his flat-footed AC and touch AC. Dexterity and Wisdom are easily the Swordsage's two top ability scores, so this class is at least going to compete with the plate Fighter when it comes to top AC. Of course, you could just give your Fighter the Combat Expertise feat and he can edge out (due to his higher BAB), but that also means giving your Fighter at least an Intelligence score of 13 in the process. . .
Seerow 08-14-06, 02:17 PM	Eh, that's debatable as far as the Swordsage is concerned. Beggining at second level, a Swordsage can add his full Wisdom bonus to AC on top of light armor and, like the Monk's Wisdom bonus, it applies to both his flat-footed AC and touch AC. Dexterity and Wisdom are easily the Swordsage's two top ability scores, so this class is at least going to compete with the plate Fighter when it comes to top AC. Of course, you could just give your Fighter the Combat Expertise feat and he can edge out (due to his higher BAB), but that also means giving your Fighter at least an Intelligence score of 13 in the process. . . Don't forget the Swordsage can go for Halfweight Mountain Plate and beat the Fighter's AC very easily.
heretic888 08-14-06, 02:20 PM	I've heard some maneuvers of these classes can be bought as talents. Is it true? Yes, non-adept characters can buy a total of three maneuvers and an unlimited number of stances via feats. However, their effective initiator level is equal to one-half their non-adept class levels, so this limits when they can use feats to purchase the more powerful maneuvers and stances. Even adepts (who have full initiator levels) don't get access to 9th level maneuvers until 17th level.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 02:23 PM	No there is no need for a fighter now. There is no reason to play anything other then a swordsage, wizard, duskblade, druid and cleric. The rest are far underpowered and wussies. <sigh> Man this stuff is getting old on these forums. All the rules lawyers and whiners about this or that not being balanced. WHO CARES?? If you're the DM and you don't like it, change it. You have that power. If you are the player and feel that <insert uber class> is so powerful, then play it. If you really lose sleep at night thinking about how the Duskblade shouldn't have a full fighter BAB and great saving throws...go to counseling. When did roleplaying a character because it was fun, get replaced by roleplaying a class because it was balanced and was great for min/maxing? Is it the generation of gamers now? Is it the 3.0 and 3.5 edition that did it? Anyone have an idea why? I always enjoyed roleplaying a good old fashioned fighter. Sometimes the simplicity of the fighter made it a relaxing and comfortable fit. You knew your role and you didn't have to think too hard about it. :)
Seerow 08-14-06, 02:27 PM	No there is no need for a fighter now. There is no reason to play anything other then a swordsage, wizard, duskblade, druid and cleric. The rest are far underpowered and wussies. <sigh> Man this stuff is getting old on these forums. All the rules lawyers and whiners about this or that not being balanced. WHO CARES?? If you're the DM and you don't like it, change it. You have that power. If you are the player and feel that <insert uber class> is so powerful, then play it. If you really lose sleep at night thinking about how the Duskblade shouldn't have a full fighter BAB and great saving throws...go to counseling. When did roleplaying a character because it was fun, get replaced by roleplaying a class because it was balanced and was great for min/maxing? Is it the generation of gamers now? Is it the 3.0 and 3.5 edition that did it? Anyone have an idea why? I always enjoyed roleplaying a good old fashioned fighter. Sometimes the simplicity of the fighter made it a relaxing and comfortable fit. You knew your role and you didn't have to think too hard about it. :) Y'know, I'm not entirely sure which fallacy that falls under. Is it Stormwind or Orberoni?
heretic888 08-14-06, 02:28 PM	All these martial classes that are presented in the ever increasing WOTC library are typically one or two trick ponies, that are built to do those one or two things. If you are referring to the classes in Tome of Battle, then this statement is dead wrong. The martial adepts are the equivalent of melee spellcasters and, as such, what they can and cannot do depends on the "spells" (i.e., maneuvers) they have readied for use during any given encounter. The fact that they can change what maneuvers they have readied with just five minutes of preparation further negates the "one-trick pony" assessment. The brutal truth is that combat actually becomes MORE tactical and strategical with the martial adepts around, certainly moreso than it is with the Fighter. Laterz.
SeptimusMagistos 08-14-06, 02:32 PM	I agree with one thing-stop making anti-fighter threads. Anything you say has been said before.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-14-06, 04:09 PM	I have never seen one of my parties with multiple spellcasters of the same class (i.e. 2 or more clerics, 2 or more wizards) but I have seen parties with 3 or more fighters in them. I don't think the ToB will change that.
Esponer 08-14-06, 05:49 PM	Y'know, I'm not entirely sure which fallacy that falls under. Is it Stormwind or Orberoni? It's the most beautifully written example of both at once that I have ever seen. I say we hail this man as our king and god, and quote his fantastic and clearly intentionally fallacious (for the purposes of humour, I'm sure!) argument until the end of time. Interestingly, re-reading the definitions of the Oberoni and Stormwind fallacies, Lafarallin's argument actually has a third flaw which surprisingly isn't quite covered. The Oberoni fallacy covers that it is the game's responsibility to be balanced, and that calling upon DM fíat to change it as necessary does not make the game balanced. The Stormwind fallacy covers that it is not impossible to be both a min/maxer and a roleplayer. However, the most severe flaw in this wonderfully written satirical argument is that concern for the balance of a game does not equal lack of concern for all other elements. It would be a part of the Stormwind fallacy, I'd imagine. The fundamental assumption Lafarallin pretends to make in his satire argument is that it is only possible to be concerned about one thing at a time. That's probably the biggest fallacy in his joke.
Iry 08-14-06, 06:24 PM	However, the most severe flaw in this wonderfully written satirical argument is that concern for the balance of a game does not equal lack of concern for all other elements. It would be a part of the Stormwind fallacy, I'd imagine. The fundamental assumption Lafarallin pretends to make in his satire argument is that it is only possible to be concerned about one thing at a time. That's probably the biggest fallacy in his joke. The whole complex of "The Mechanics shouldn't matter/are perfectly balanced because I'm a good roleplayer" argument falls directly under the Stormwind Fallacy :D And yeah, the paragraph preceeding it is completely Oberoni Fallacy.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 06:36 PM	It's the most beautifully written example of both at once that I have ever seen. I say we hail this man as our king and god, and quote his fantastic and clearly intentionally fallacious (for the purposes of humour, I'm sure!) argument until the end of time. Interestingly, re-reading the definitions of the Oberoni and Stormwind fallacies, Lafarallin's argument actually has a third flaw which surprisingly isn't quite covered. The Oberoni fallacy covers that it is the game's responsibility to be balanced, and that calling upon DM fíat to change it as necessary does not make the game balanced. The Stormwind fallacy covers that it is not impossible to be both a min/maxer and a roleplayer. However, the most severe flaw in this wonderfully written satirical argument is that concern for the balance of a game does not equal lack of concern for all other elements. It would be a part of the Stormwind fallacy, I'd imagine. The fundamental assumption Lafarallin pretends to make in his satire argument is that it is only possible to be concerned about one thing at a time. That's probably the biggest fallacy in his joke. Do you enjoy making fun of someone because you disagree with their opinions?
DragonChild_ 08-14-06, 06:39 PM	Let me point out that you were the one who started with the name calling, with 'rules lawyers' and 'whiners'. At least his post had content. Can't swallow your own medicine, eh? Maybe you're the one that should go to counceling. Edit: To be on topic, there was never any USE for a fighter, let alone a need. The new ToB looks like it has melee classes that can actually pose as valid compared to others. I for one think that's a good thing.
Esponer 08-14-06, 06:50 PM	Do you enjoy making fun of someone because you disagree with their opinions? Pardon, was your argument actually serious? I assumed from the melodramatic emoticon sighing, unnecessary use of capital letters, general rhetoric and rhetorical questions, sarcasm, ad hominem comments and suggestions that people seek counselling, that you were having a giraffe. It seems from your stock response here that you actually meant everything you said. I apologise for any offence caused by my continuation of what I perceived as lighthearted jest. However, in answer to your question, yes I do.
Lotus Crane 08-14-06, 07:00 PM	Do you enjoy making fun of someone because you disagree with their opinions? No, I'm sure Esponer doesn't make fun of people simply for having a different opinion; he's been around for a while and has a pretty decent reputation, which I'll back up. However, your post wasn't just a difference of opinion, it was a misconceived, unjustified, poorly written and fallacious argument that posits a nonsensical claim. Good roleplaying is no substitute for more balanced mechanics, and more balanced mechanics can't ruin good roleplaying, because the two have no direct, intrinsic bearing on each other. Certainly, your own game may be running just fine based on the strength of your group's roleplaying skills, but there's no reason for you to disparage the rest of us for demanding better mechanical balance. If anything (though I admit I'm making some rather optimistic assumptions and leaps of logic here), once perfect (or closer to perfect) game balance is achieved, and it stops being an issue for more gamers, it should actually be easier for more people to focus on better roleplaying. So Monsieur Lafarallin, you may want to reverse your position, and actually support those of us who oppose the status quo, the inertia of poorly balanced mechanics.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 07:01 PM	Let me point out that you were the one who started with the name calling, with 'rules lawyers' and 'whiners'. At least his post had content. Can't swallow your own medicine, eh? Maybe you're the one that should go to counceling. I was not attacking anyone personally I was generalizing. I did not quote anyone targeting them. I did not imply I was refering to anyone on the forums. I posted a response with my opinion. If you took offense then sorry if the truth hurts. My own medicine, you mean singling out people and mocking them? Making new members to the forums feel like they are not part of some elite "geek squad"? Yeah I do that all the time on these forums. Whatever...
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 07:05 PM	Pardon, was your argument actually serious? I assumed from the melodramatic emoticon sighing, unnecessary use of capital letters, general rhetoric and rhetorical questions, sarcasm, ad hominem comments and suggestions that people seek counselling, that you were having a giraffe. It seems from your stock response here that you actually meant everything you said. I apologise for any offence caused by my continuation of what I perceived as lighthearted jest. However, in answer to your question, yes I do. First of all, it wasn't an argument. It is how I feel. There is nothing to argue about. If you and the entire world disagrees, it isn't an argument because it is how I feel. For clarification, the comment about seeking counseling was sort of a joke, yes. I've seen many arguments about duskblades for example, and how "broken" they are. As for going on and on about how I resemble some other forum user, you and your cronies ran off, well that is just tacky.
DragonChild_ 08-14-06, 07:06 PM	How come the same doesn't apply to you? Your post was a badly stated mish-mash of logical fallacies and insults thrown at random, with nothing to actually back up a point or make it seem like you're not a total idiot. If you don't like it... well, the truth hurts.
Lotus Crane 08-14-06, 07:10 PM	If you took offense then sorry if the truth hurts. Except that your claims aren't the truth; far from it. That's the reason you received such a vitriolic response. Having a difference of opinion is fine, as line as it isn't a blatant deviation from factual reality. Your view that anybody who tries to improve mechanics is, by necessity, an enemy of good roleplaying, is not simply false; it is egregiously so. Likewise, just because a DM can rule 0 anything he doesn't like, doesn't mean that it excuses rules 1-999 from being less than perfectly written. Being forced to choose between mechanics and roleplaying is an artificial dilemma. We can request more balanced mechanics, you can request better roleplaying, and with a little luck, the next edition of D&D can deliver both.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 07:14 PM	No there is no need for a fighter now. There is no reason to play anything other then a swordsage, wizard, duskblade, druid and cleric. The rest are far underpowered and wussies. Attempt at humor. Go look at posts and see how many talk about the above as "uber", "broken" and "over-powered". <sigh> Man this stuff is getting old on these forums. All the rules lawyers and whiners about this or that not being balanced. True statement. Many rules lawyers and many whiners. Go read the forums...this is not an opinion but an observation. WHO CARES?? If you're the DM and you don't like it, change it. You have that power. If you are the player and feel that <insert uber class> is so powerful, then play it. I believe most RPG's follow the "golden rule", that the rules are suggestions and guidelines but as a DM you can make any rules you want. If you feel that one class is so powerful over all others then play that class. This isn't a MMORPG with a PVP server. Everything really doesn't have to be perfectly balanced in a roleplaying game. When did this become a rule? If you really lose sleep at night thinking about how the Duskblade shouldn't have a full fighter BAB and great saving throws...go to counseling. This is absolutely true. If you lose sleep over a "make believe" game that can be run completely different by each and every DM that runs it...you do need help. This is a game and a form of entertainment. This is about on par with arguing about who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo. When did roleplaying a character because it was fun, get replaced by roleplaying a class because it was balanced and was great for min/maxing? Is it the generation of gamers now? Is it the 3.0 and 3.5 edition that did it? Anyone have an idea why? This is again an observation and conclusion based on many common threads on this forum. You notice the question marks? That would be me asking because I did not understand what I perceived. I always enjoyed roleplaying a good old fashioned fighter. Sometimes the simplicity of the fighter made it a relaxing and comfortable fit. You knew your role and you didn't have to think too hard about it. :) This is false? I didn't enjoy roleplaying an old fashioned fighter because my role was clearly defined and it was pretty much a no brainer? Well thanks for clearing that up.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 07:25 PM	Except that your claims aren't the truth; far from it. That's the reason you received such a vitriolic response. Having a difference of opinion is fine, as line as it isn't a blatant deviation from factual reality. Your view that anybody who tries to improve mechanics is, by necessity, an enemy of good roleplaying, is not simply false; it is egregiously so. Um...where did I state this? You're infering something from my statement and claiming that is how I feel. There are many muchkins that are wonderful roleplayers. That has nothing to do with what I stated. Likewise, just because a DM can rule 0 anything he doesn't like, doesn't mean that it excuses rules 1-999 from being less than perfectly written. [/B] It is impossible to perfectly balance a game or have perfect rules. Things change and someone will always disagree. Lets be realistic here. That is why RPGing games have a brilliant rule like letting a DM have the final say. Being forced to choose between mechanics and roleplaying is an artificial dilemma. We can request more balanced mechanics, you can request better roleplaying, and with a little luck, the next edition of D&D can deliver both. I never mentioned anything about balanced mechanics. I mentioned people complaining about class balance. Balancing everything. I never stated that anyone was a bad roleplayer. I made a comment that I enjoyed roleplaying fighters because of the simplicity at times. I can't be held responsible for whatever you "READ INTO" my statements.
Lotus Crane 08-14-06, 07:25 PM	I believe most RPG's follow the "golden rule", that the rules are suggestions and guidelines but as a DM you can make any rules you want. But the less time the DM has to worry about mechanics, and the less time he has to spend fixing the rules, the more time he can spend writing his story and running the campaign. If you feel that one class is so powerful over all others then play that class. Now that's a narrow-minded solution. What if somebody wants to play a sorcerer for roleplaying reasons, but he's convinced that mechanically, wizards are superior, and he doesn't want to be a liability for his party? He's not trying to be a powergamer, so it's not a matter of just playing the class he thinks is the most powerful. However, it's not fair that he should be punished for following his heart, by having to live with a mechanically inferior class. What is fair is to improve balance, by making the wizard weaker or sorcerer stronger, so that power is no longer part of the equation, and he can focus purely on flavor preference. This isn't a MMORPG with a PVP server. Everything really doesn't have to be perfectly balanced in a roleplaying game. When did this become a rule? The opposite is just as, if not more, true. Everything really doesn't have to be unbalanced in a roleplaying game, either. Or are you saying that you would actually have less fun if a straight fighter 20 was capable of effectively fighting flying, ethereal enemies who can cast 9th level spells?
pepolich 08-14-06, 07:27 PM	hi to everyone, im new in these message boards but i've been playing dnd a while back about the fighter issue, i think that searching for which core class is the weakest or the power house takes the game to a level which was never meant to be. the game is not made for individual success, is a team game where everyone has a time to shine once a while. so i dont really think the fighter is underpowered. i personally like the way the fighter was designed, and with the cleric, rogue and wizard classes make the best combination of four players. certainlly a fighter cant cast power word kill, or miracle, but a well-made fighter can win the initiative, strike and maybe the wizard or cleric will not have the chance to cast (for example being grappled or pinned). keep playing!
Seerow 08-14-06, 07:35 PM	Good luck grappling the Wizard who almost certainly has a ring of free movement....
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 07:43 PM	Good luck grappling the Wizard who almost certainly has a ring of free movement.... Aren't there feats though that could give a fighter an edge? One thing fighters have is a good number of feats. How about something like Mageslayer, just off the top of my head. Wouldn't that help ya out?
Seerow 08-14-06, 07:46 PM	Aren't there feats though that could give a fighter an edge? One thing fighters have is a good number of feats. How about something like Mageslayer, just off the top of my head. Wouldn't that help ya out? Don't think so. Freedom of Movement isn't so easily countered. Remember, the rule of the game is feats suck. Proof: A feat is a second level spell. Freedom of movement is a 4th level spell. Thus Freedom of Movement can't be overcome by any feat. I don't think there's even an epic feat to let you get around it. Edit: Just checked Complete Arcane. All Mage Slayer does is negate the ability of a caster you threaten to cast defensively. It has absolutely no effect on an item that grants freedom of movement.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 07:58 PM	Don't think so. Freedom of Movement isn't so easily countered. Remember, the rule of the game is feats suck. Proof: A feat is a second level spell. Freedom of movement is a 4th level spell. Thus Freedom of Movement can't be overcome by any feat. I don't think there's even an epic feat to let you get around it. Edit: Just checked Complete Arcane. All Mage Slayer does is negate the ability of a caster you threaten to cast defensively. It has absolutely no effect on an item that grants freedom of movement. Oh okay, was thinking it may have had an affect on magical item use. Probably only if they are activated magical items then?
Crimson_Concerto 08-14-06, 07:59 PM	1) There is still the same need for fighter that there ever was: two good bonus feats in two levels. Seriously, what else did power-minded people use fighter for anyway? If anything, Martial Adept and Martial Stance as fighter bonus feats make fighter dips potentially more useful, and in potentially more builds, then ever before, and certainly nothing in ToB can replace dips in fighter. 2) But what if you want to play a fighter? Well, that was never an optimal decision, and remains just as valid as it ever did as a roleplay decision. If anything, the feats mentioned above improve the monoclass fighter. As a simple matter, the fighter does a better impression of a Warblade (martial adept abilities) then the Warblade does of a fighter (feats? what feats?) 3) Any concept that requires a lot of feats, say an armored two weapon fighting soldier, or a chain tripper, or even a role-play motivated character who has to be able to shoot a bow respectably and fight from a horse and sword & board melee and use an exotic weapon or two (boomerang anyone? I'm in a link mindset lately) can be represented much more aptly by a fighter then by any of the ToB classes. I'm playing a monoclassed character right now, who's gimmick (heavily armored twin-fighting bastard sword master) really just can't be pulled off by any other single class (admittedly it's a terrible gimmick, but it's what I wanted to do, and I didn't want to multiclass). So, to recap, if you need feats more then abilities, then you want fighter AND Tome of Battle makes fighter better then it was AND it doesn't matter that ToB classes are better then monoclass fighter because every other class is better then monoclass fighter AND fighter isn't made obsolete because it is still an essential dip in any non-caster build that likes feats (ie, most of them), and that's the only thing fighter was ever really good for anyway. AND, didn't we already have this discussion? (not 'we' specifically, just 'we' in general) Watch out, monoclassed fighter, because as if you weren't killed by Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Psywar, Hexblade, Soulborn, Totemist, Duskblade, or Knight, the addition of yet three more better martial base classes then you is sure to put the nail in your coffin! Nobody will play you now! :P Seriously, stop worrying about the fighter, and start rejoicing that you can finally play a melee character that remains relevant all the way to high levels without super-specializing in a single gimmick. And if you already think you had that (who am I to argue, I just repeat what I'm told ;)) then instead rejoice in three new way-cool classes that should be a blast to play, and a boatload of new Cool Moves (tm) that almost any martial class can make some use of. :cool: Wow... That pretty much completely sums up how I feel about it. Well said! :D
Seerow 08-14-06, 08:01 PM	Oh okay, was thinking it may have had an affect on magical item use. Probably only if they are activated magical items then? Nope, no effect at all on magical items. It only stops casters from casting defensively, when I'm 99% sure only happens when they're actually casting a spell. Like I said, feats suck. Maybe if the feat was better people would take it seriously =D
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 08:06 PM	Nope, no effect at all on magical items. It only stops casters from casting defensively, when I'm 99% sure only happens when they're actually casting a spell. Like I said, feats suck. Maybe if the feat was better people would take it seriously =D So there aren't any feats out there that would help a fighter handle a caster? The fighter would basically be doomed? I find this hard to believe but I'm not an expert at 3.5 rules, obviously. :)
Seerow 08-14-06, 08:15 PM	So there aren't any feats out there that would help a fighter handle a caster? The fighter would basically be doomed? I find this hard to believe but I'm not an expert at 3.5 rules, obviously. :) Well, there's no way to deal with a prepared caster. I'm just going to clarify that because someone's going to start calling foul and talk about how they own mages all day long with their fighters, because the mages they fight just kind of sit there and do nothing. But yeah, a smart caster will beat out a warrior simply because anything the Fighter can do, he has some sort of answer for.
Lafarallin 08-14-06, 08:17 PM	Well, there's no way to deal with a prepared caster. I'm just going to clarify that because someone's going to start calling foul and talk about how they own mages all day long with their fighters, because the mages they fight just kind of sit there and do nothing. But yeah, a smart caster will beat out a warrior simply because anything the Fighter can do, he has some sort of answer for. Well this apparently hasn't changed then since 2nd Edition. Then again a 2nd Edition wizard was probably the most powerful class to play; however, the experience needed kind of reflected that.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-15-06, 08:08 AM	Again, I will say that for damage dealing capacity nothing has matched many of the fighters I have seen. As far as the ToB is concerned, I find those classes closer to spellcasters than to meleers.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 09:10 AM	Like I said, feats suck. Why do you think so?
Esponer 08-15-06, 10:15 AM	Why do you think so? I was wondering that as well. Feat synergy is a beautiful, beautiful thing. With feats alone you can almost completely shut down a spellcaster, as my DM is witnessing against my battlefield control fighter.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 10:28 AM	I was wondering that as well. Feat synergy is a beautiful, beautiful thing. With feats alone you can almost completely shut down a spellcaster, as my DM is witnessing against my battlefield control fighter. Totally – feats are the one of the main things I would never want WotC to change come a new (inevitable) edition.
Seerow 08-15-06, 11:04 AM	Because, as I said, any feat that the Fighter can possibly get is a second level spell for the Wizard. This means if the Wizard actually wanted to, he could have a feat for every spellslot he has above 2nd. A fighter's whole set of class features is 11 feats. A Wizard can get 32 base, plus whatever from intelligence. Even -with- limited duration (which half of them won't really have since if you're REALLY going to waste that many slots on feats, you may as well metamagic them up) it gives flexibility the Fighter couldn't dream of. Cast a spell and gain any feat you want? Yes please. But y'know, let's ignore that. Weapon Focus/Spec/MWM. +3/+4. First level spell Divine Favor: +3/+3. So in this case a First Level Spell is almost equivalent to THREE feats. It's possible to go through most feats and say "Hey, a spell beats that", but what really strikes me the most is that the Wizard COULD have more feats than a Fighter, but doesn't because it's not worth it to him to have those feats. I mean, I'll admit some feats do synergize well, and they can have nice effects, but not enough to keep up. Realize 6 Feats, Full BAB, and 3 HP is the difference between a Wizard and a Fighter. So those feats and BAB NEED to be able to compete with spellcasting. Yes, you can put together an optimized build and dish out 500-1000 damage a round, I won't dispute that, but there are no feats out there that actually help you get into possition to DEAL that damage. If there were higher end feats that gave effects like a permanent Air Walk and Lion's Pounce, then the Fighter MIGHT be able to compete as is. But there's not. He relies entirely on equipment to compete, rather than his class features. That's the problem.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-15-06, 12:12 PM	Isn't equipment figured into the CR system? I don't see the issue. Sure, his equipment supports his ability to engage in combat but it isn't completely necessary. Every character is assumed to have magical gear at high level. I think that citing that as a reason why fighters are weak is a poor argument at best.
aelryinth 08-15-06, 01:35 PM	The point he's making is that the Fighter MUST have his equipment to be viable. A Wizard does NOT need his equipment to be viable. With the right spell selection he can get along amazingly well without much equipment at all. Once you start adding in equipment...Wizards get silly powerful quick. ===Aelryinth
Manic Man 08-15-06, 01:36 PM	Haven't gotten the Nine blades book yet. However i find the fighter to be fine when you throw in the PHB2 (ToM, XPH and CW optional but additional power boosts) So as a short answer, probably yes. Basically the spellcasting classes depend on a few rather broken spells (Shapechange) and the combination of 1 feat (Divine Metamagic) and 1 item (Nightstick) to attempt to out fight the fighter. Its unfortunate but such cases will always occur, given WoTC authors do not read all the material that is concurrently being written and i highly suspect they have read all the stuff already published. For example, did you know there are 1774 D&D 3.5 feats (Up till last month)plus or minus 30. Though some are repetitive, thats a heck lot of feats to do permutation and combinations with. Its even worse for spells. Just take note of the various combinations that break the game and as the DM do some control (thats the DM's job anyway)
Esponer 08-15-06, 01:52 PM	Because, as I said, any feat that the Fighter can possibly get is a second level spell for the Wizard. This means if the Wizard actually wanted to, he could have a feat for every spellslot he has above 2nd. A fighter's whole set of class features is 11 feats. A Wizard can get 32 base, plus whatever from intelligence. Even -with- limited duration (which half of them won't really have since if you're REALLY going to waste that many slots on feats, you may as well metamagic them up) it gives flexibility the Fighter couldn't dream of. Cast a spell and gain any feat you want? Yes please. I hope you're talking about some spell which actually states in its text that it can be cast multiple times to gain different feats, or else you're talking nonsense. :) I also hope you're not referring to one particular spell which greatly requires Eschew Material Components, or else has an extremely difficult material component, which requires you to meet all prerequisites (so you can't take ones with fighter level prerequisites, ability score prerequisites you don't meet, etc.), and which has a duration of 10 minutes per level. Particularly not one which is an 8th level spell if persisted, not that it can be persisted anyway. Still, I don't dispute that the fighter is underpowered, but saying that feats are underpowered seems the wrong end of the stick to me.
Broken vacuum 08-15-06, 01:59 PM	If it is Heroics he is talking about there is also the fact that it is limited to fighter bonus feats that the recipient of the spell must meet the prerequisites for. That hardly fits the description of "any feat you want".
Seerow 08-15-06, 02:23 PM	1) Aelryinth got my response to Pyke fairly accurately, so I'll let that go. 2) I forgot the material component for Heroics, silly me. You're right, if your DM requires you to actually have something like that, it is hard. But since your material components pouch is supposed to automatically have anything without a set value, and a piece of armor or weapon doesn't really have a set value (which is why it can be used with eschew material components) that will never be a problem. 3) 10min/level is plenty long enough to last through 2 encounters, extend it and it's as good as a whole adventuring day. (400 minutes, or about 6 and a half hours...) 4) Why -wouldn't- you be able to cast heroics more than once? It says nowhere that it can't be used to grant more than one feat. 5) Any Feat he meets the prerequisite for... isn't it convenient that that's concievable any feat the Fighter has except WF/WS/MWM/GWF/GWS/Weapon Supremacy? And of course, barring Supremacy, all of those feats are straight Hit/Damage bonuses, which is a 1st level spell effect. I mean, you're talking about all these awesome feat synergies, I doubt that Specialization is a part of that. (And spells like Bite of the Werebear with +16 strength means you're prettymuch dead even with the Fighter, who has a +6 enhancement item, then +5 from levels/tome, assuming the Wizard doesn't waste money on the tome) Anyway, the thing is, if you think the Fighter is underpowered you HAVE to agree that Feats are underpowered, at least compared to the Designer's intentions. The Designers seem to think that 6 feats and a full BAB make up for 9 levels of spellcasting, and by that standard YES the Feats are too weak. Do feats as they are serve their purpose, and make some characters more useful? Yes. But do they let a character who has feats and nothing else compete, as they should? No.
Lafarallin 08-15-06, 02:44 PM	Don't feats like mageslayer kind of even the playing field if you're in melee range of a caster? What is a caster going to do if he is getting hit for 30+ damage around and invokes AoO everytime he tries to cast?
Broken vacuum 08-15-06, 03:00 PM	5) Any Feat he meets the prerequisite for... isn't it convenient that that's concievable any feat the Fighter has except WF/WS/MWM/GWF/GWS/Weapon Supremacy? And of course, barring Supremacy, all of those feats are straight Hit/Damage bonuses, which is a 1st level spell effect. Not true. Only going by fighter bonus feats in the SRD that you did not mention above, there are strength, dexterity, wisdom, BAB, proficiency and skill prerequisites to be found. And as for being a first level spell effect, I rather doubt it. Most fighter feats grant unnamed bonuses, spells do not.
Esponer 08-15-06, 03:06 PM	4) Why -wouldn't- you be able to cast heroics more than once? It says nowhere that it can't be used to grant more than one feat. Stacking rules. Same spell on you more than once, ain't gonna' help you. Anyway, the thing is, if you think the Fighter is underpowered you HAVE to agree that Feats are underpowered, at least compared to the Designer's intentions. The Designers seem to think that 6 feats and a full BAB make up for 9 levels of spellcasting, and by that standard YES the Feats are too weak. You don't have to agree at all: you either think that the way to fix the fighter is to make feats stronger, or to alter the makeup of the fighter class. I think the latter. Feats are of power x (although this varies widely, and this does need to be regulated: no more Toughness and Endurance, ick), if fighters want to be at power y they need more feats. Or even better, class features.
Seerow 08-15-06, 03:21 PM	Don't feats like mageslayer kind of even the playing field if you're in melee range of a caster? What is a caster going to do if he is getting hit for 30+ damage around and invokes AoO everytime he tries to cast? He'll take a 5 foot step. Better question-What's the Mage doing in your melee range to begin with unless he WANTS to be there? Not true. Only going by fighter bonus feats in the SRD that you did not mention above, there are strength, dexterity, wisdom, BAB, proficiency and skill prerequisites to be found. And as for being a first level spell effect, I rather doubt it. Most fighter feats grant unnamed bonuses, spells do not. BAB and Proficiency can be gotten through spells, and the highest stat requirement I'm aware of is 19. Since enhancement bonus DO count towards qualifying (this was clarified somewhere, forget where), a Wizard can have his best stat in Int, then go Dex, Con, Str, and a +2 item of strength, or any number of spells that boost it, allow him to qualify for pretty much anything. As for the first level effect-I give you Divine Favor. Yes, it's a luck bonus rather than unnamed. How many other luck bonuses to hit and damage will a typical fighter have? As an aside: I generally consider a Cleric with Spell Domain optimal for this sort of thing. Wizard CAN do it, but unless he researches his own spells, or takes War/Strength Domains through Arcane Disciple, he's falling behind. Stacking rules. Same spell on you more than once, ain't gonna' help you. So you're saying casting Energy Resistance twice, once for Fire Resist, once for Cold Resist won't stack? If you cast the same spell twice for different effects, you get the effect of both. You don't have to agree at all: you either think that the way to fix the fighter is to make feats stronger, or to alter the makeup of the fighter class. I think the latter. Feats are of power x (although this varies widely, and this does need to be regulated: no more Toughness and Endurance, ick), if fighters want to be at power y they need more feats. Or even better, class features. I actually agree with this. If you read the Fighter Discussion topic, you'll see I really do lean towards giving them more class features and making feats more even (rolling together several of the weaker feats to make them more desirable). What I'm arguing here is what by RAW a feat should be matching up against, and as such what power level they should be at to be competitive.
Esponer 08-15-06, 03:49 PM	So you're saying casting Energy Resistance twice, once for Fire Resist, once for Cold Resist won't stack? If you cast the same spell twice for different effects, you get the effect of both. Precisely.
Esponer 08-15-06, 03:49 PM	My first double post!
Nephlite 08-15-06, 03:52 PM	Eh, that's debatable as far as the Swordsage is concerned. Beggining at second level, a Swordsage can add his full Wisdom bonus to AC on top of light armor and, like the Monk's Wisdom bonus, it applies to both his flat-footed AC and touch AC. Dexterity and Wisdom are easily the Swordsage's two top ability scores, so this class is at least going to compete with the plate Fighter when it comes to top AC. Of course, you could just give your Fighter the Combat Expertise feat and he can edge out (due to his higher BAB), but that also means giving your Fighter at least an Intelligence score of 13 in the process. . . Does this make precedent that it is balance for a light armored person to gain Wisdom to AC at level 2 or 3? Ooh, Change CV ninja so he gains that by changing something else maybe...
Tony Vargas 08-15-06, 04:14 PM	A Wizard does NOT need his equipment to be viable. With the right spell selection he can get along amazingly well without much equipment at all. Without /any/ equipment at all, though, the Wizard is down to his mastered spells (without material components). That's not a good place to be. Sorcerer stands up to it a bit better, as long as too many of his known spells don't call for material components. Obviously, Eschew Material would help both, too. I also hope you're not referring to one particular spell which greatly requires Eschew Material Components, or else has an extremely difficult material component, which requires you to meet all prerequisites (so you can't take ones with fighter level prerequisites, ability score prerequisites you don't meet, etc.), and which has a duration of 10 minutes per level. Particularly not one which is an 8th level spell if persisted, not that it can be persisted anyway.Why not Persistant? That is closer to what a feat is, afterall: access to the ability 24/7. So Fighter bonus feat = 8th level spell. Plus, of course, feats can't be dispelled. And you don't generally have to be able to talk to use them (Silent)... and... I mean, I think we could follow this logic to Dodge = Epic Spell. Doesn't sound like a very sound path to follow. And what's so onerous about the Material component that you'd want Eschew Material (which only works on cheap components, anyway)? :confused:
Seerow 08-15-06, 04:16 PM	Precisely. I've never heard of anything like that. I know that things overlap rather than stacking, but that's for the case of straight bonuses, like you couldn't cast Divine Favor Twice and get +6/+6. Energy Resist not stacking with itself? I'd like to see where that's ruled.
Seerow 08-15-06, 04:23 PM	Without /any/ equipment at all, though, the Wizard is down to his mastered spells (without material components). That's not a good place to be. Sorcerer stands up to it a bit better, as long as too many of his known spells don't call for material components. Obviously, Eschew Material would help both, too. Except a Wizard starts out guaranteed his spellbook, as part of his class. You could argue for normal items for other characters, the idea here is going without magical items. I never did understand the "TAKE AWAY THE WIZARDS SPELLBOOK" argument when talking about their lack of need for equipment. Their spellbook costs nothing, other items do. Take away the CL Boosting Items and Metamagic Rods instead, and it's more appropriate. Why not Persistant? That is closer to what a feat is, afterall: access to the ability 24/7. So Fighter bonus feat = 8th level spell. Plus, of course, feats can't be dispelled. And you don't generally have to be able to talk to use them (Silent)... and... I mean, I think we could follow this logic to Dodge = Epic Spell. Doesn't sound like a very sound path to follow. Because it's a touch spell and can't be persisted. But As a 3rd level slot you can extend it and have it last essentially all day. And saying you have to make them silent and still? That's absurd. You're not casting them in the middle of the fight, you have them going for long term Of course, the Wizard has the Advantage of being able to get that Fighter bonus feat that he REALLY NEEDS right in the middle of battle, while the Fighter doesn't. Or he can completely change the style by picking new feats while the Fighter doesn't. And what's so onerous about the Material component that you'd want Eschew Material (which only works on cheap components, anyway)? :confused: The Material is "A piece of weapon or armor used by a fighter of at least 15th level", or something along those lines. That's why it's a bit of an issue, it depends on if your DM makes you keep track of it or not. It's easier to say eschew materials.
Esponer 08-15-06, 04:44 PM	I've never heard of anything like that. I know that things overlap rather than stacking, but that's for the case of straight bonuses, like you couldn't cast Divine Favor Twice and get +6/+6. Energy Resist not stacking with itself? I'd like to see where that's ruled. All right: I'll answer, but I'd prefer it if we didn't discuss this. I'm saying this now because I've derailed too many threads already by pointing this out, as it seems quite controversial. If you do want to discuss it, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree if you disagree: doesn't really matter to this thread anyway. Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. To paraphrase (as per my understanding, naturally), "if the same spell is applied to produce varying effects then the last spell in the series trumps the others". Ergo, casting heroics to grant Combat Expertise, and then heroics to cast Power Attack, causes the latter to replace the former. Heroics can only be usefully active upon you once, basically. Likewise, resist energy provides you with various options for its use, but it can only be usefully active upon you once. The main point of contention (one whose logic I still fail to understand), is that this only applies if the player decides that two castings would cause irrelevance of the former, e.g. polymorph. This argument quotes the last sentence I quoted, but fails to see that it says that if you cast the same spell twice and try to get differing results, the former becomes irrelevant: not "if it sounds like the second should make the former irrelevant, the former isn't in effect anymore", but "if this happens, the former isn't in effect anymore — it effectively becomes irrelevant". The "irrelevance, therefore isn't in effect anymore" point is actually the next rule on stacking in this section.
Broken vacuum 08-15-06, 05:02 PM	BAB and Proficiency can be gotten through spells, and the highest stat requirement I'm aware of is 19. Since enhancement bonus DO count towards qualifying (this was clarified somewhere, forget where), a Wizard can have his best stat in Int, then go Dex, Con, Str, and a +2 item of strength, or any number of spells that boost it, allow him to qualify for pretty much anything. BAB enhancing spells are all 1 round/level as far as I know, so those extra feats will not last long. You will also have to be at least 7th or 11th level (for clerics and wizards respectively) to pull it off. Proficiencies you can get through Master's Touch (Spell Compendium), which only lasts 1 min/level and also you need a quite lenient DM that interprets proficiency with a specific item as the same as general proficiency. Tenser's Transformation does not grant shield proficiency. Regarding ability scores, enhancement bonuses of course counts, but there are ability score prerequisites for strength, dexterity, intelligence and wisdom. Your typical wizard will certainly have enough intelligence, but cannot really afford to dump constitution, so the whole thing results in serious MAD. I do not know about you, but I have seen a lot of gnome and halfling wizards with no more than 8 strength and plenty of wizards with a base dexterity of less than 15, meaning you need some expensive equipment. A +6 enhancement item is reasonable achievable around level 12, but it represents a huge investment. The various +4 enhancement spells are also only 1min/level, so again the feats are not there for long. What this means, is that if a wizard invests enough he can probably get almost whatever fighter bonus feat he wants, but it requires a lot of rounds for buffing. The thing is that the only spell of the necessary ones that lasts as long as 10min/level is Heroics and that spell cannot be cast until the recipient meets the prerequisites. The feats will only last one encounter and realistically speaking there is a very slim chance that the character has the time to actually buff up for enough rounds to actually give him the same amount of feats that a fighter has 24/7. And the character needs to do this prior to every encounter. And I cannot think of any spell that actually grants skill ranks. As for the first level effect-I give you Divine Favor. Yes, it's a luck bonus rather than unnamed. How many other luck bonuses to hit and damage will a typical fighter have? Prayer, Recitation? As an aside: I generally consider a Cleric with Spell Domain optimal for this sort of thing. Wizard CAN do it, but unless he researches his own spells, or takes War/Strength Domains through Arcane Disciple, he's falling behind. Neither Heroics nor Master's Touch are cleric spells, meaning the cleric needs to use his Domain slots for them. A cleric has only one domain slot per spell level and only those of 3rd level or higher is usable for this purpose, resulting in a grand maximum of 7 spells. At no level does the cleric have enough slots to gain the same amount of feats a fighter has for even one fight.
Seerow 08-15-06, 05:14 PM	And I cannot think of any spell that actually grants skill ranks. How many feats require more than 4 ranks? How many of those are particularly useful? Prayer, Recitation? I'd love to see how that works. Edit: Realized I was unclear. Was typing up a response while somewhat distracted. What I mean is I'd love to see the Fighter get either of those effects himself. Neither Heroics nor Master's Touch are cleric spells, meaning the cleric needs to use his Domain slots for them. A cleric has only one domain slot per spell level and only those of 3rd level or higher is usable for this purpose, resulting in a grand maximum of 7 spells. At no level does the cleric have enough slots to gain the same amount of feats a fighter has for even one fight. Spell Domain and Spontaneous Domain casting gets you all of the Wizard spells you like. It DOES however reduce efficiency slightly, as your spells are a level higher... so now a 4th level for Extended Heroics.
Xeviat-DM 08-15-06, 05:46 PM	I haven't read this whole thread yet, but why does Plate Armor make a fighter have higher AC? A 16 Dex and Breastplate nets +8 AC, where as Full Plate (which costs a full 1,200 more gp) nets 1 AC more with a 12 Dex. Since the Warblade has use for Dex, I see no reason why a Warblade won't manage to pull a 16 Dex by mid game with some dex boosting items. Also, fullplate penalizes you so much more than breastplate does, all for +1 AC in the long run. It just doesn't seem worth it to me if you can afford the higher Dex.
Broken vacuum 08-15-06, 06:25 PM	How many feats require more than 4 ranks? How many of those are particularly useful? Your point being? 1 or 23 ranks, you are not getting them through a spell. Useful or not of course depends on the situation and furthermore fighter bonus feats tend to be much more useful to fighters than to wizards. Reasonably speaking Heroics is a much better spell for buffing warrior types than for buffing caster types. I'd love to see how that works. Cleric or paladin casting Prayer is in all probability the most common situation regarding this. Works beautifully. Spell Domain and Spontaneous Domain casting gets you all of the Wizard spells you like. It DOES however reduce efficiency slightly, as your spells are a level higher... so now a 4th level for Extended Heroics. Seems a bit silly to extend them, as the spells providing the prerequisites will probably run their course before an ordinary unextended Heroics does. However that may be, now you can pull it off in theory, at least at 20th level. You will have a total of 49 spell slots (including bonus spells from a 31 wisdom score) above 2nd level. A fighter has 11 feats on a cleric so casting Divine Power and 11 Heroics prior to every fight only uses 48 of those in a 4 encounter day. Possibly he could also manage a 5 encounter day thanks to some of the feats not being dependent on buffs. The real problem is, however, that Anyspell has a 15 minute casting time, meaning preparing those 44 Anyspells takes 11 hours. And you need to spend a considerable number of rounds prior to every single fight to get your feats. A vanilla fighter sleeps for 8 hours and can fight the other 16. This cleric sleeps for 8 hours, prays for 1 hour, prepares wizard spells for 11 hours and can use feats as a fighter in 4-6 4 minutes intervals (extended Divine Power) - given enough buffing time prior to these intervals that is - during the remaining 4 hours. I see a rather large difference between the two.
Tony Vargas 08-15-06, 06:38 PM	Except a Wizard starts out guaranteed his spellbook, as part of his class.Well, he gets it, but he almost certainly spends gold to add to it, also, and it's saleable. You could argue for normal items for other characters, the idea here is going without magical items.Ah. Well that's different. Yes, of course casters do much better than non-casters without magic items, since items are a tad reduntant for them in the first place. I never did understand the "TAKE AWAY THE WIZARDS SPELLBOOK" argument when talking about their lack of need for equipment. Their spellbook costs nothing, other items do.It's a piece of equipment that can be taken away, lost or destroyed. It's expensive to replace. Seems sensible to me. Because it's a touch spell and can't be persisted. OK, well, hypothetically, if you had a slightly better verion of Persistant that /could/ affect touch spells... you'd still be talking Dodge = Shapechange. :rolleyes: Though, when you consider that it'd Dodge - or any other feat you qualify for, chosen each day - it might not look that bad compared to other 9th-level equivalents. Even if it does go 'poof' when your pre-casts get dispelled. But, I like the idea of working it backwards. If a feat /does/ equal unlimitted 24/7 use of a 2nd level spell, then a feat that gives you See Invisible or Blur (24/7, undispellable, non-magical), for instance, would be just fine... But As a 3rd level slot you can extend it and have it last essentially all day.OK, a 5th level caster extends it to... an hour and 40 minutes. That's 'essentially all day.' A 20th level caster gets it all the way up to almost 7 hours. I suppose a given fantasy world /could/ have a 7-hour day... The Material is "A piece of weapon or armor used by a fighter of at least 15th level", or something along those lines.Hoi. Well, that'd be trivial for a 15+ level wizard with a fighter in his party, for a 3rd level caster, though, it'd be a bit of a challenge. But a 'souvenir item used by a famous warrior' probably shouldn't cost too much to acquire - too bad there's no fantasy ebay...
Seerow 08-15-06, 06:49 PM	Your point being? 1 or 23 ranks, you are not getting them through a spell. Useful or not of course depends on the situation and furthermore fighter bonus feats tend to be much more useful to fighters than to wizards. Reasonably speaking Heroics is a much better spell for buffing warrior types than for buffing caster types. Point being Wizards have more skill ranks than Fighters, due to high intelligence. If it's a mere 4 ranks, the Wizard could easily put a handful of skillpoints into it. A Cleric... eh. Even so, I can think of very few Fighter Bonus feats that would be useful that require skillranks. Or if you're trying to say a Fighter is better as a skillmonkey and that's your point...? I'm not really getting it. Cleric or paladin casting Prayer is in all probability the most common situation regarding this. Works beautifully. Yeah, I edited in before you posted (or at least before I saw your post), but since we're discussing class abilities that's actually a point to Cleric rather than Fighter... The real problem is, however, that Anyspell has a 15 minute casting time, meaning preparing those 44 Anyspells takes 11 hours. And you need to spend a considerable number of rounds prior to every single fight to get your feats. Huh, I don't remember it having a 15 minute casting time. Nobody's mentioned that anytime anyspell has been brought up in the past. But until I check it, I'll accept it and say that the Cleric isn't as great at that particular schtick as I thought. Well, he gets it, but he almost certainly spends gold to add to it, also, and it's saleable. Well he gets 2 per level for free, so you have to at least give him that, even if you don't buy into things like secret page for free scribing. OK, a 5th level caster extends it to... an hour and 40 minutes. That's 'essentially all day.' A 20th level caster gets it all the way up to almost 7 hours. I suppose a given fantasy world /could/ have a 7-hour day... "essentially all day" means as long as is likely to matter. Unless you're in something like WLD, 7 hours is going to last you for the adventuring day, which is what matters. Hoi. Well, that'd be trivial for a 15+ level wizard with a fighter in his party, for a 3rd level caster, though, it'd be a bit of a challenge. But a 'souvenir item used by a famous warrior' probably shouldn't cost too much to acquire - too bad there's no fantasy ebay... Actually, even the level 15+ Wizard with a Fighter in his party will have trouble, because we all know nobody sticks it out for 15 levels in Fighter ^_~ So yeah, Eschew Components is almost required for that. But then again, since it's a non-value-assigned component, you could place it in the same category as Bat Guano and Candle Wax and just assume you always have it if you have a component pouch.
__DnD4Life__ 08-15-06, 07:31 PM	I just picked up ToB yesterday, and after reading through all the classes, I have to say, I love it. The stances and manuvers are all really awesome, and my only gripe about it is the sword sage's Bab. Other than that, it rocks. I plan on playing a Warblade in an upcoming campaign. He will rpobably be a halberd weilding tripping disarmer, and I am also going to dip into fighter at level 2, since I need feats. So, that is to say that the fighter is still going to be used, and in the same manner as it has been for a while: a dip class.
Tony Vargas 08-15-06, 08:25 PM	"essentially all day" means as long as is likely to matter. Unless you're in something like WLD, 7 hours is going to last you for the adventuring day, which is what matters.I wasn't aware adventuring was a 9-5 job (OK, 9-4, no lunch break). :whatsthis I guess this is one of those 'campaign variables.' Some DMs really do let the players dictate the pacing of the adventure to that degree - other's don't. Actually, even the level 15+ Wizard with a Fighter in his party will have trouble, because we all know nobody sticks it out for 15 levels in Fighter :heehee
Subedei 08-15-06, 08:31 PM	Druid is the only class I've ever seen that could concievably be taken to 20th level alone...and even then it's seriously stretching it. Here's the thing, I haven't seen a feat combo that can actually negate the need for good saves on a fighter, and good saves are not something you're ever going to have with a monoclass character. Even a 20th level monk will not have the saves necessary to consistantly resist a 20th level wizard's spells.
Tony Vargas 08-15-06, 09:36 PM	good saves are not something you're ever going to have with a monoclass character. Even a 20th level monk will not have the saves necessary to consistantly resist a 20th level wizard's spells.Unless by 'consistantly' you mean "only failing on a 1," I don't see it. A wizard might boost his INT as high as 34 (18 to start, +6 booster, +5 Inherent, all level-ups), take Greater Spell Focus, and throw down a 33 DC on a 9th level spell (possibly just Heightened to 9th level - I forget what the available 9th level save-or-else spells are). That's not just a "20th level Wizard" - that's a 20th level wizard who's whole mission in life is to make you feel bad about about your save bonus. But, the 20th level monk is unlikely to have a modified save-resisting stat below 20 - quite possibly much higher (WIS will be pretty high for instance), will certainly have a +5 resistance bonus, and quite possibly other bonuses as well. That's a +22 without even really trying (saving half the time vs the maxxed wizard's best shot vs whatever his /worst/ save is), and quite a bit of room to improve (save-boosting feats, yet higher stats, other named bonuses - morale, sacred & luck are all available).
Lokathor 08-15-06, 10:21 PM	The fighter is a no trick pony... *snip* Couldn't agree with you more. There's no need for a fighter as much as there was never any need for a fighter. Barbarian / Ranger / Paladin could fill the bill for "melee guy", but the fighter's feats didn't really stack up much past the very lowest levels. Though, to be fair, the fighter is just as good at those low levels as he was before. The more emotionless I get about the game the more it fills me with rage that the fighter could possibly be as outclassed as he is. It upsets me that they didn't playtest DnD 3.0 past level 10 and that so much of that has stuck around until now. A super warrior class should not make you look through books to find the perfect feats to make a perfect combo, they should just have a bunch of good feats that more or less go together in the core-ish books and then leave the super combo hunting for the strange back corners of obscure supliments; same as it is for spells and items.
malisteen 08-15-06, 10:42 PM	Before we all get too tangled up, in case the origional poster is still around, I would like to pause just long enough to point out that, even with all these opposed viewpoints, all seem to be in agreement about something: Tome of Battle mechanics and classes are not overpowered. When compared to the fighter either everything is just fine and the fighter is at least as good as the new classes are (say those who feel the fighter is just fine), or they come out ahead only in so far as the fighter was behind the curve to begin with (say those who feel the fighter is behind the curve). Nobody seems to think that the Tome of Battle classes and mechanics are too powerful, so if you are a DM, and want to go by this crazy bunch's apparant concensus, feel free to let the material into your game. Do correct me if I missed someone's opinion. There was a lot of feudin' going on, and I had to duck my head at times to dodge some of the wild verbal attacks flying around.
Manic Man 08-15-06, 11:04 PM	Well this apparently hasn't changed then since 2nd Edition. Then again a 2nd Edition wizard was probably the most powerful class to play; however, the experience needed kind of reflected that. Not really. The fighter was the most powerful class in AD&D and at 9th level. With Grand Mastery, a 88hp ancient red dragon would be dead in 1 round. No standard/full actions, always full attack. The mage was powerful only in situations where flexibility and options were required, which was why the One Man Army build was the 9th level fighter/11 level cleric/X level mage dual classed human. Here's the thing, I haven't seen a feat combo that can actually negate the need for good saves on a fighter, and good saves are not something you're ever going to have with a monoclass character. For the wizard Insightful Reflexes For the Fighter Indomitable Soul There are others, though you would probably have to search the books for them. The best saving character is probably the paladin. Multiple stat bonuses to your saves means he makes his saves more often than not, as long as he has stat boosting items, starts with a high point buy and/or gets inherent bonuses. I understand your point though. as the +2 at first PrC level means a +1 to +2 bonus to saves (depending on your level cut off).
Tony Vargas 08-15-06, 11:05 PM	The more emotionless I get about the game the more it fills me with rage.... :uh-huh: It upsets me that they didn't playtest DnD 3.0 past level 10 and that so much of that has stuck around until now. OK, seriously, though, I understand, sorta. IMX, D&D was never, in any version, well-balanced once you got into double-digit levels. Yes, it would have been nice if it had been pulled off - but it'd've been quite an accomplishment. Just retire by 12th and your campaigns should be fine. :rolleyes:
Nephlite 08-15-06, 11:29 PM	Not really. The fighter was the most powerful class in AD&D and at 9th level. With Grand Mastery, a 88hp ancient red dragon would be dead in 1 round. No standard/full actions, always full attack. The mage was powerful only in situations where flexibility and options were required, which was why the One Man Army build was the 9th level fighter/11 level cleric/X level mage dual classed human. You'd need 16 Str + 18 Wis and Int, Very hard to achieve. Plus what if the dragon (spellcasters as they are) cast Protection from Magic Weapons or Stoneskin. Plus don't forget fear saves/wing blast (knocks you away). I've face such dragons in Buldar's Gate on PC (they use AD&D rules). Very strong even against dragons. There are others, though you would probably have to search the books for them. The best saving character is probably the paladin. Multiple stat bonuses to your saves means he makes his saves more often than not, as long as he has stat boosting items, starts with a high point buy and/or gets inherent bonuses. I understand your point though. as the +2 at first PrC level means a +1 to +2 bonus to saves (depending on your level cut off). Problem with Pally is multiple stats needed and not everyone has high point buy. But I'll give you that Fighters in AD&D had best save progession.
Lokathor 08-15-06, 11:59 PM	*confusion* Ah, what I ment is that the more you stop saying "but roleplaying makes up for it!" and get down to the "character as a bundle of numbers" idea, the more you realize that decisions between "spellcaster" and "not spellcaster" basicly turn into "win" or "lose" at higher levels. It's possible to win as a non-caster, but it's just so much harder even when it is possible that it makes things into a joke. Just retire by 12th and your campaigns should be fine. I'm running 1st up to 6th so far. But my "core" players are now Psi5, Sor6, and Sha6... So I'm not sure if that'll make things better or worse as levels go up.
Manic Man 08-16-06, 01:46 AM	You'd need 16 Str + 18 Wis and Int, Very hard to achieve. Was it 18? i thought it was 17. Its been a long time though. Thats how you identify a OMA character player. They roll and roll until they get the stats. There wasn't any point buy then. Also one of the systems of rolling (9d6, 8d6, 7d6, etc) that got inherited from 1e UA, didn't make reaching those stats that hard. Using the 4d6 roll to reach it wasn't that hard either, unless you as the DM clamped down on it. Plus what if the dragon (spellcasters as they are) cast Protection from Magic Weapons or Stoneskin. Plus don't forget fear saves/wing blast (knocks you away). You didn't need to make fear saves once you hit 6th level. The wing blast meant the dragon was aware and flying. With an archer fighter, the ancient red would be dropping like a rock (drop at half hp) in 1 round or dead. Stone skin also meant the dragon was already aware. The number of attacks absorbed was pretty bad. I remember mages used to open up with magic missile to take away both attacks and cause damage. Protection from magic weapons existed as unique scrolls, not the scribe kind, though stuff like iron guard existed. On a straight initiative check, followed by the fighter's (4/5?) attacks meant a dead ancient red dragon. It was basically impossible to miss, unless on a natural 1. The biggest problem with the OMA build was that it is a dual class build, not multiclass. It meant you needed some one to cover your hindquarters when you were a fighter 9/cleric 1 and when you're a fighter 9/cleric 11/mage 1. Once you hit fighter 9/cleric 11/mage 10, you could use your fighter abilities and that pretty much made everything easy. Mage would go for the wild mage class if possible, while fighter and cleric classes would take kits. Throw in Spells and Magic where you would make your own classes, you had a character worse that the original OMA. I've face such dragons in Buldar's Gate on PC (they use AD&D rules). Very strong even against dragons. I don't remember being able to build a OMA character in baldur's gate, though its also a long time ago. Most times the most powerful build possible isn't available in PC games. Problem with Pally is multiple stats needed and not everyone has high point buy. Yeah thats the problem. It can be helped some by inherent, enhancement bonuses, which is why my original statement did qualify it as such. But I'll give you that Fighters in AD&D had best save progession. Yes unforunately his saves weren't the best except against breath weapon. The cleric's save vs death magic was the best. I think the wizard was best against spells, can't remember the rest.
Manic Man 08-16-06, 01:59 AM	It's possible to win as a non-caster, but it's just so much harder even when it is possible that it makes things into a joke. You should look at the moaning sorcerer players (or non playing critics) make. Same with the bard players on this board. Both are casters but require skill to create and play well. Personally i find that more and more are simply too lazy to bother spending time to make a good character or use tactics(Newbies excluded).
Broken vacuum 08-16-06, 02:22 AM	Point being Wizards have more skill ranks than Fighters, due to high intelligence. If it's a mere 4 ranks, the Wizard could easily put a handful of skillpoints into it. A Cleric... eh. Even so, I can think of very few Fighter Bonus feats that would be useful that require skillranks. Or if you're trying to say a Fighter is better as a skillmonkey and that's your point...? I'm not really getting it. I am pointing out that the claim that a wizard can cast a second level spell to get any fighter bonus feat he wants is flat out wrong. The built in limitations in the spell makes this not happen. If a wizard wants to get access to the mounted combat line of feats he has to invest skill points in ride, not much, but it is not just something he can decide at an arbitrary point in time. If you include feats from PHB2, there are a number of more skill rank intensive feat prerequisites. Regarding usefulness, fighter bonus feats are usually useful to fighters, but not wizards. Wizards typically do not have the strength, HP, AC and BAB of a fighter, so they cannot make good use of the feats. A fighter can though. Essentially this is a further limitation on the spell as a self-buff. Yeah, I edited in before you posted (or at least before I saw your post), but since we're discussing class abilities that's actually a point to Cleric rather than Fighter... No, this part of the discussion is about your claim that certain feats are the same as a first level spell. It is me pointing out that a fighter can have the entire WF/WS tree and luck bonuses, while a cleric cannot. Stacking bonuses is an important part of D&D and must be considered in any sort of argument about balance. Unnamed bonuses are worth quite a lot more than named - excepting dodge bonuses that is. Huh, I don't remember it having a 15 minute casting time. Nobody's mentioned that anytime anyspell has been brought up in the past. But until I check it, I'll accept it and say that the Cleric isn't as great at that particular schtick as I thought. As far as I know Anyspell has always had a 15 minutes casting time; I first saw the spell in the 3.0 PGtF and it was the same there as it is in the Spell Compendium. I can understand people missing it, though. If you only cast one or two of these per day around the same time as you pray for spells, the casting time will not matter much in most cases. If you are trying to spam it like this, though, it does become a factor.
Leugren 08-16-06, 09:05 AM	My own concern over this crazy new supplement extends way beyond the effect it will have on Fighters. I'm just as worried about Experts and Commoners. I mean, who's going to want to play a Commoner now that we've got Warblades and Swordsages?! In my current game, we have a quadraplegic Commoner named Bubble-Boy who consistently outperforms all of the Fighters in the group. Somehow, I just don't think Bubble-Boy is going to be content to simply rule the Inner Planes now that Tome of Battle is out... Anyone else share my concerns?
babysamurai 08-16-06, 09:08 AM	My own concern over this crazy new supplement extends way beyond the effect it will have on Fighters. I'm just as worried about Experts and Commoners. I mean, who's going to want to play a Commoner now that we've got Warblades and Swordsages?! In my current game, we have a quadraplegic Commoner named Bubble-Boy who consistently outperforms all of the Fighters in the group. Somehow, I just don't think Bubble-Boy is going to be content with simply ruling the Inner Planes now that Tome of Battle has come out... Anyone else share my concerns? Now, that's hysterical.
Lokathor 08-16-06, 09:57 AM	Yep, 15 minutes. It's in the spell compendium. Edit: Leugren, i'd still play an Expert from time to time, but you know... old habits die hard.
Draegun Fury 08-16-06, 11:25 AM	Hey, concerning the 2e talk, can you explain the following quoted text? (Its been a while)... [QUOTE]The biggest problem with the OMA build was that it is a dual class build, not multiclass. It meant you needed some one to cover your hindquarters when you were a fighter 9/cleric 1 and when you're a fighter 9/cleric 11/mage 1.QUOTE] Cheers. PS: The 10 toughest PCs in our 3x games all earnt their stripes in 2e ;)
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-16-06, 12:58 PM	Yep, 15 minutes. It's in the spell compendium. Edit: Leugren, i'd still play an Expert from time to time, but you know... old habits die hard. I still do play experts. I find it an enjoyable class. :D
Leugren 08-16-06, 01:00 PM	But, listen, seriously: if no one's left over to play Commoners or Experts, just what do you you think that's going to do to the demographics of the average D&D campaign world? I mean, if everyone's beating their plowshares into swords, who's going to be left over to run the stores or man the mills, not to mention *gasp* grow the pipeweed? I think this Tome of Battle is a curse!
Tony Vargas 08-16-06, 01:08 PM	Yes unforunately his saves weren't the best except against breath weapon. The cleric's save vs death magic was the best. I think the wizard was best against spells, can't remember the rest.Actually, in AD&D, the fighter started out with relatively poor saves across the board, at 1st, but progressed more quickly than everyone else, gaining prettymuch the best saves accross the board by high level. Clerics started out with, by far, the best poison/death magic save. Wizards started out with good saves vs Wands & Spells. Thieves started out slightly better than the fighter, but improved slowly and were just sad at high level. Of course, with many save /bonuses/ available, no varialble DCs (your class/level determined you DC) and few penalties, most highish level characters failed saves only on a 1, anyway - that was one of the things 3E changed (and, even though it changed it to the detriment of most PCs, particularly fighters, it is better game design). I really wouldn't mind fighters having all-good saves, though. The class is unique in it's complete lack of magical and extraoridinary abilities - being able to stand up to such things would help.
Silverthumb128 08-16-06, 05:00 PM	I really wouldn't mind fighters having all-good saves, though. The class is unique in it's complete lack of magical and extraoridinary abilities - being able to stand up to such things would help. That wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Most of the better/decent classes have multiple good saves, Cleric and Ranger for example. And I can't see any reason that it would break the class to have Good Reflex and Will saves.
Manic Man 08-16-06, 10:28 PM	The biggest problem with the OMA build was that it is a dual class build, not multiclass. It meant you needed some one to cover your hindquarters when you were a fighter 9/cleric 1 and when you're a fighter 9/cleric 11/mage 1. It meant that you really started as a 1st level cleric. You could not access your fighter abilities at all unless you were willing to forfeit all xp for the adventure or battle. The only thing you could use from your fighter 9 was your hp (don't remember if saves carried over)