Post/Author/DateTime	Post
happycows 12-24-04, 07:38 PM	Seriously I have yet to see one good fix. 3.5 works great. There shouldn't be a 4.0 unless they completely and radically change the game to something that is still fun and exciting. All these fixes proposed on the forums are horrible. 1) The sorcerer vs wizard The sorcerer gets more spells and doesn't have to carry around books. The wizard can know way more spells, but when their books are destroyed they only know one spell ie. read magic. To compensate for all these losses the wizard gets metamagic feats and a faster progression... it's only a level faster guys. 2) The fighter. The fighter kicks ass in the early levels. So what if it gets weak later on... did you see the prerequisites for the epic level feats? Yeah only the fighters can get them with all their feats. They eventually start kicking ass again in epic level. **** I remember seeing a picture of a fighter jumping down into a pit to fight a dragon. You act like the fighter is a lost cause. Most people don't go strait fighter because they want some special abilities. It's the same thing with clerics, sorcerers, and wizards... eventually they go into a prestige class. It costs some prerequisites if you haven't noticed. Fighters meet prerequisites for prestige classes alot easier feat wise. That's a good advantage to me. Besides you can take one level in rogue than be a fighter and than be a prestige class so quick unless there's a level requisite. 1 level into rogue is not bad... 1d6 every flanking opportunity and skills costs you 4 life though... but that's nothing... if you need life later grab improved toughness from the warriors. 3) Bards are weak. Bards are weak, they're secondary fighters, secondary casters, secondary healers, but full time entertainers. Now shut up. It's a fun class because you're always in the action fighting wise and you're a real charm. I don't see anything wrong with the bard. After all people generally like bards on the team... I mean come on you need entertainment. ~~~ Seriously. 3.5 is great. All the books are great. Sure the sudden metamagic feats are kind of nuts... but that's 1/day. Do you really fight 1 battle in a day? In a dungeon? Does a red dragon really not use the magical items he hordes? Does that anti-magic field really not mess with a wizard? Does the fighter really not have magical items to dual with a wizard in epic levels? Yeah I think the game is pretty balenced. Anything can be improved, but you people are sick and you make the fixes way to drastic. None of you understand synergy or the importence of choosing feats. When you play a fighter class you have to choose your feats well and it's not very hard. My fighter could kick a wizards ass all the way up to level 8 than the wizard got a bit too strong... but in epic levels the fighter vs wizard could be a coin toss depending on what items we have and the circumstances we're fighting in. Not everyone is going to be of equal power at every level. lvl 1 fighters tend to beat the crap out of every other lvl 1 class. Just like level 14 wizards tend to beat the crap out of every other level 14 class... but can the wizard keep it up? Nope eventually runs out of spells. Quit comparing your class to other classes... role playing is not about winning or being the best. The game is well balenced. You percieve an inequity by comparing level 20 characters... that inequity is the reverse of level 1 characters... up the levels so more and you'll discover that the wizard is only good for so long. After all when the wizard is resting and an epic commoner approaches... HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah it's over for the wizard (assuming he used up all his spells and needs to rest to spend an hour planning them all after the rest). That's sad. Oh yeah sorcerers only get to learn spells from the wizard/sorcers list in epic levels. So fighters can take them on with the right equip. The only real inequality would lie in versatility. In that case the druid is the most powerfull class. I guess you could fix versatility... but powerwise each class had advantages and disadvantages and are relatively equal. If you want to do that try this, under the fighter special put, "Beginning at level 18 a fighter selects a cross class skill from a fighters list that class becomes a class skill and the fighter adds 21 ranks to it. From now on a fighter gets a bonus skill every new fighter level which he must add to the chosen cross class skill." That'll make the fighter a bit more versatile. But that's not really necessary or realistic.
Megrim_Lord 12-24-04, 07:54 PM	but in epic levels the fighter vs wizard could be a coin toss depending on what items we have and the circumstances we're fighting in. yes it would be a coin toss. a wizard would toss a coin, transform it into a great wyrm prismatic dragon in mid flip, the dragon would land on the fighter, and no one would have to ask who won.
BlaineTog 12-24-04, 08:11 PM	my God the fixes here suck Seriously I have yet to see one good fix. All these fixes proposed on the forums are horrible. Now shut up. you people are sick None of you understand synergy or the importence of choosing feats.You know, insulting people is hardly a good way to persuade them to your viewpoint, especially when you're doing it mid-rant.
Frozen Yakman 12-24-04, 09:12 PM	The fighter gets abilities that only pertain to combat and to a lesser extent surviving traps, every other class gets abilities that exclipse the fighter in non-combat abilities. Logically then the fighter should be the combat monster at all levels 1-20 and on. If you had a party of 4 fighters, then no combat encounter should be remotely challenging. Your party should fear going up agianst a troup of Hobgoblin fighters much more than a troup of Goblin rogues or Orc Barbarians, or Drow Clerics, or Elven Wizards. Again at all level 1-20 and on. There should be no question that a fighter is going to dominate in any fight an adventuring party participates in. There should be no question that a monster with fighter levels will be harder than a monster with any other class levels. In fact the only class that could concievably be considered a match is that battle mage class in Complete Arcane. None of his spells have any use outside of combat except for Light and Continual Flame so he shares the singular focus of the fighter.
Jell_Moo 12-24-04, 10:07 PM	Wow, thanks for telling us what's what! I had no idea that we were all so wrong and everything was really fine. That's a load off my shoulders. I mean, I was completely unaware that your opinion was actually fact, and ours was so horribly and completely wrong. Now that you've shown me the light, I've learned to never complain again, and simply accept the status quo time and again. Thank you for showing me how stupid I was. Those with an aversion to sarcasm of the highest degree should steer clear of this post.
ElvenRngDM333 12-24-04, 10:23 PM	Alright Frozen Yakman, so lets power up the fighter so that he is the combat god. After that, everyone will start complaining how bad all the other classes are and how the fighter is to good. Great idea. I don't want to shout at anybody, but I really don't think there is to much wrong with 3.5. Many of the arguements that people are making are completely biased because it isn't that the characters aren't balanced, but that the people playing them want them to be uber-powerful. The balance that exists right now is great because each character can shine throughout the game, sometimes a little dimmer then other times. Sure, when the wizard hits 10th level he can usually smack a 10th fighter around, but I wouldn't have wanted to only have a mere 4 hp die/2 skill points per level progression and then get shafted on my spell power!!! Plus, if the character playing the fighter plays him right (with both actions in that combat and how he built that character), he should still be able to handle himself decently. I think that the only thing that really needs to be fixed are the prestige classes and their design specifically. I've run across and seen many problems where players will power game through only the first couple of levels of prestige classes to pick up ridiculous abilities and such, and combine them all to create a nightmare of a PC. My recommendation then is that prestige class prereque's be a little higher as the norm (in that I mean your base class/multi-class would have to be higher then 6th level before you could access the prestige class) and that the MINIMUM number of levels that a prestige class MUST contain is 10 levels so that the class abilities can be spread out through the ten levels and not make it possible to acquire insane powers by only going to levels into the class. That way, you can't get into a prestige class until, lets say about 8th level and by the time you get the cool class ability, you are about 14th level or so. That way, people would not normally have a Wiz 2/Rog 3/Trickster 4/Heriophant 2/etc./etc. Thats my only real problem with 3.5 though. Most of the other arguments, to me, are only based upon that persons desire to be uber powerful with some character.
Arcane Guyver 12-24-04, 10:28 PM	Do you have ANYTHING constructive to offer here on this board? I mean, besides basically telling people repeatedly that the PHB is like the bible, and gamers should not add to or take away from it?
q'afuu 12-24-04, 10:31 PM	I think happycows is actually alone and unhappy. And presumably not bovine in nature either. How ironic. :P
RayOMan 12-25-04, 01:13 AM	funny cow.
DM Denubis 12-25-04, 01:26 AM	What is it with you and making these threads? Do you get some type of pleasure out of it? Or is there somone behind you, feeding you peanuts for your work?
Dave1001 12-25-04, 01:56 AM	Is it April 1st already? Because I just can't take this 'noob analysis seriously. :looloo:
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 12-25-04, 02:30 AM	3) Bards are weak. Bards are weak, they're secondary fighters, secondary casters, secondary healers, but full time entertainers. Now shut up. It's a fun class because you're always in the action fighting wise and you're a real charm. I don't see anything wrong with the bard. After all people generally like bards on the team... I mean come on you need entertainment. I am truely sick of hearing this. Arcane Strike + Bard = Melee powerhouse. I dish out as much or more damage than our fighter in melee. I am a 13th level Bard and didn't pick all the "right" feats. As such I can attack with Good Hope, Haste and Arcane Strike to deal out damage as follows. +1 Cold Iron Holy Longsword or +1 Adamantine Bane (Undead) Morningstar, 18 str (14 with +4 str belt), and able to burn a spell to add +1 to hit and +1d4 damage from Arcane Strike. So I get 3 Attacks with Haste. I burn a 5th level spell. I attack with a +9 Base Attack, +4 str, +1 enhancement from weapon, +2 Good Hope, +1 Haste, +5 from Arcane Strike (burning 5th level spell) for a total of +22 or 22/22/17. Add +2 if the creature is undead from Bane. Damage is 1d8 + 4 str, +2 Good Hope, +1 enhancement + 5d4 for a total of 1d8 + 7 + 5d4 (with a possible +2d6 from Holy or 2d6 +2 from Bane). Adverage damage would be 28. I hit usually hit with 5 attacks in 2 rounds unless I have a flanker. That adverages to 70 points of damage a round. A rogue with the same number of attacks (say with a bow) and an 18 str/18 dex and point blank shot would deal...........Composite Short Bow +1 (18 str) (we will assume holy or bane is possible) while Hasted with Good Hope. So I get 3 Attacks with Haste. I attack with a +9 Base Attack, +4 dex, +1 enhancement from weapon, +2 Good Hope, +1 Haste, for a total of +17 or 17/17/12. Add +2 if the creature is undead from Bane. Dex bous is subtracted from the to hit. Assuming that a the rogue has Sneak Attack damage, the would be Damage is 1d6 + 4 str, +2 Good Hope, +1 enhancement + 1 point blank shot +7d6 for a total of 8d6 + 8 (with a possible +2d6 from Holy or 2d6 +2 from Bane). Adverage damage would be 36. Assuming the same hit adverage of 5 attacks in 2 rounds. That adverages to 90 points of damage a round. So the rogue is clearly better, correct? The Bard has a couple of advantages that the Rogue does not. 1st-Arcane Strike works against non-critable creatures. That would change the 90 damage of the Rogue to 30. 2nd-The Bard can cast those spells rather than rely on another player, or drinking potions. Potions are usually at base caster level so the duration will be much shorter as well. 3rd-The Bard will have more income. If the Rogue is buying potions or the Bard has Craft Arms and Armor, the Bard will have more income to spend on other items. The potion part will even out at higher levels when both will have a descent Use Magic Device. (I cannot wait to add a few scrolls of Tenser's Transformation to my equipment. I may not be able to cast a spell, but I sure can burn them for extra damage.) I am not saying the Bard is the best character to play, I am just saying they do not suck.
BlaineTog 12-25-04, 11:29 AM	I am truely sick of hearing this.As am I. Bards are balanced. You just need to put a tad more effort into them. In a real campaign, fascinate + suggestion is very, very potent in the hands of a creative player. For example, in my current campaign, we have a player who is the king of min/maxing. Seriously. Whatever character he makes dominates the game. His last was a monk that out-meleeed everyone due pretty much to his insane disarm checks alone; while the fighter did more damage, he was taking a lot more damage as well because A) his enemies had their weapons and B) his AC was a *lot* lower. He was causing such a problem that the DM killed him off (but it took 4 warforged barbarian, each with 3 more levels than us, to do it, and he undoubtably could have gotten through it if he hadn't resigned himself to his fate). So, he made a bard. And he tried to purposely make it underpowered. He picked up Subsonics (a useful but less than uber feat), Great Fortitude, and (IIRC) Endurance, put a 10 into Dex, and didn't max out more of the social skills. The result was someone who could get us through pretty much any encounter with thinking creatures that gave us just one round to talk without anyone swinging our sword even once, firing even a single arrow, or manifesting so much as 1 power. Because fascinate's DC is unbeatable and he knew how to use suggestion well. We ended up having to ask him politelly to let us kill some enemies because the fighters in the party were getting bored. Another example: last year, I made a bard as well. I... did now know how to use fascinate + suggestion. In fact, I made the mistake of all but forgetting about Bardic Music (until near the end of the campaign when the DM reminded me that I had it :blush: ). My bard was a JoAT, pure and simple. Good, diverse skills; a very high Bardic Knowldge check; a varried spell list; and a boatload of petty magic items (Bards can make really good use of petty magic items). He wasn't a scene-stealer like a wizard or cleric would have been, but he was a very valuable member of the party; more than once, I saved everyone from (*gasp*) certain doom. Because the rogue hadn't put any ranks into Open Lock, I had to use Shatter to take out every single lock (I use that awesomely useful spell for a lot of things, also). CLW helped out a good deal. Bards are not weak, but they may look that way if you don't work their synergies (the bard's abilities all work together really well) and can't make use of Bardic Music (particularly fascinate + suggestion). While these two examples arn't enough to cinch it (both were in oversized parties, for example), I think they offer some hints about how to make bards really useful.
Blakk_Magemaster 12-25-04, 12:00 PM	I can't believe anyone is aknowleging this guy. This type of stuff shouldn't even be one the boards. Guys just looking for an argument. Dumb cows...
ssvegeta555 12-25-04, 12:22 PM	happycows you dont have to be butt turd about this. Even though you are entitled to you own opinion making remakes as these is rude and uncalled for.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 12-25-04, 12:28 PM	As am I. Bards are balanced. You just need to put a tad more effort into them. Bards are not weak, but they may look that way if you don't work their synergies (the bard's abilities all work together really well) and can't make use of Bardic Music (particularly fascinate + suggestion). While these two examples arn't enough to cinch it (both were in oversized parties, for example), I think they offer some hints about how to make bards really useful. Fascinate is Uber Powerful when you know how to use it. Combine Fascinate with Pick Pocket. Or have your Rogue do it. Fascinate is almost a guarenteed failed save.
BlaineTog 12-25-04, 01:13 PM	Fascinate is Uber Powerful when you know how to use it. Combine Fascinate with Pick Pocket. Or have your Rogue do it. Fascinate is almost a guarenteed failed save.This is exactly what I'm talking about. Playing a bard really well requires creativity on the part of the player. Enchantments and Illusions, for example, are easily some of the most powerful spells in the game if you use them correctly. Blakk_Magemaster, ssvegeta555, and others: There's no need to fling insults. They don't get anything done.
TyraaloftheFist 12-25-04, 02:08 PM	Hey, happycows...all opinions are valid, first of all. Second, what I would LIKE to do is give you a one-finger salute for telling everybody that they suck or are stupid, or just plain insulting them. I won't, because then I would be flipping off my computer screen, and then it would start being evil. Thirdly, while you ARE allowed your opinion,(by the Constitution, no less), we are also entitled to not have to put up with your insults. Basically, EVERY thread I have seen that you started sounds suspiciously like, "So-and-so sucks ass! You suck ass! Everybody sucks ass!". Period. IMHO, you suck ass for insulting us every chance you get. While I know BlaineTog has a good point about the flinging of insults, you did it first, 'cow. Most likely, you should stop insulting people or we will insult you. And completely outta the blue, why can we type 'ass' and 'tight-assed', but not '****' and '****-retentive'? Why? Any ideas?
strenoth 12-25-04, 02:43 PM	cause an ass is a donkey?
Frozen Yakman 12-25-04, 03:17 PM	Alright Frozen Yakman, so lets power up the fighter so that he is the combat god. After that, everyone will start complaining how bad all the other classes are and how the fighter is to good. Great idea. I don't want to shout at anybody, but I really don't think there is to much wrong with 3.5. Many of the arguements that people are making are completely biased because it isn't that the characters aren't balanced, but that the people playing them want them to be uber-powerful. The balance that exists right now is great because each character can shine throughout the game, sometimes a little dimmer then other times. Sure, when the wizard hits 10th level he can usually smack a 10th fighter around, but I wouldn't have wanted to only have a mere 4 hp die/2 skill points per level progression and then get shafted on my spell power!!! Plus, if the character playing the fighter plays him right (with both actions in that combat and how he built that character), he should still be able to handle himself decently. The thing is, the fighter has only one avenue to shine in, that is combat. Every other class has some other avenue to shine in so they should not be able to routinely outshine the fighter in combat. Even if all the other classes were given an equal chance to shine in combat the fighter would be jilted becuase those other classes can also shine when solving puzzles, finding and disarming traps, engaging in any kind of social situation, aquiring information, surviving a hostile or difficult environment, or any of a number of other challenges an adventurer has to deal with. The only way to make the fighter balanced as he's currently written is to make sure that he steals a large majority of the show in near every combat. The alternative solution, and much better solution in my opinion, is to give the fighter other abilities that have absolutely nothing to do with fighting. Give him something to do besides get sloppy drunk at a tavern until the party needs to fight something.
ElvenRngDM333 12-26-04, 12:34 AM	Nice point Frozen Yakman, but I seriously doubt that the fighter would ever be anything but a combat brute. I mean, he's a Fighter. To make him a little more appealing, they could probably boost his saves so that he is more like the monk perhaps. Then, he would be able to deal with many more situations because he would be able to save against a surprise trap, deal with the sandstorm, and or resist the spell cast at him by the wizard. But there I just couldn't see the fighter gaining some class ability that didn't focus on combat. If he did, then he wouldn't be a fighter anymore.
Dargan Griess 12-26-04, 06:03 AM	I dont know elven ranger I could see leaving his skill points the same but adding Bluff, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Diplomacy. So its really tough to choose what to leave out. Those could give good flexibility to the fighter but are still focused on combat and discipline.
Kary Wanzer 12-26-04, 10:04 AM	:r: I dunno ElvenRng hon, sure in theory the fighter is a "fighter," but sometimes I wonder if he's that more in name than in actual practice. Even with Lotus Crane's fixes, which seem scary (a bonus feat every level could intimidate some people I guess), all it would give a fighter is twenty bonus feats... considering that most of them don't really synergize with eachother, or scale in power to remain anywhere near comparable to the higher level special abilities of other classes, I don't know why this is such a problem. In the PHB alone, a twenty possible feats might be Blind-Fight, Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Improved Critical, Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Quick Draw, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization. That might seem impressive, but I don't know if that really stands up to a rogue's Sneak Attack +10d6, Trapfinding, Evasion, Trapsense +6, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Crippling Strike, Opportunist, Slippery Mind, or a barbarian's Fast Movement, Rage (and all of its upgrades including the amazing Indomitable Will), Uncanny Dodge, Trapsense +6, Improved Uncanny Dodge, DR 5/—. Just looking at how it all adds up, I don't see how the fighter is really more of a king of fighting even with a bonus feat at every level, and with only about half of that for the official fighter, I can only suspect that he might actually be inferior in straight-up fighting compared some of the other classes. :u: Oh, and happycows, I don't see how your unprovoked personal attacks on Lotus Crane and other posters on these boards, amount to anything but flaming, trolling, childish moaning and outlashing, and a violation of the CoC. There's a thin line between exercising your freedom of speech to critique (hopefully constructively) the works of others, and just plain harrassing them. Some of your posts would almost qualify as hate speech if they were targeted at a federally recognized group rather than a circle of fellow gamers, and as the 14th Amendment shows us, when you cross over into that area, you really don't have the right to say whatever you want to anymore. Freedom has to be balanced by responsibility, and you happycows, are one of the most irresponsible people on these boards. :b:
Ravos20 12-26-04, 03:29 PM	a friend of mine made a bard who took over a country (this was 3.0) without a single violent action... he used charm and his bard songs to take over a WHOLE country , one city at a time. he eventually became the ruler. he did this in one game lol. the bard can be very powerfull
Stuntman 12-28-04, 01:33 PM	First of all, I don't believe that you could create any rules system for a game as complex as D&D where everyone would like to play almost every type of character you can make. Everyone has their own preferences and levels of playing skill. The D&D rules are designed so that almost anyone can find some type of character that like to play. It is not designed so that everyone would be willing to play every type of character. There will always be people who are dissatisfied with some aspect of the game. If you see a race or class that you do not like, you can either just try playing it as is, play another race or class, or make modifications so that the race or class is more to your liking. The option that brings up the most discussions is the modifications of the race/class or other rules. Everyone has their own vision of the D&D world and game. That vision may be slightly different than what is represented in the core rules and is likely different than everyone else's vision. Everyone also has a different idea or experience about what is balanced and fun to play. The endless discussions comparing the wizard and sorcerer is a classic example. All of the proposed changes are a result of peoples experience or inexperience with the game. Some of the changes may be good to some people and bad to others for different reasons. Personally, I have set to see different gaming sessions run by different DM's played by different people be very similar. Classes, races, feats, skills, etc. vary in value between different play groups. However, I don't feel that any of the play styles are inherently wrong. They are just different. What is a good change for one group is not necessarily good for another.