Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 01:44 PM	And it relates to optimization: Characters mainly devoted to melee- and ranged-combat have these stats to worry about: BAB, HP, and feats. A melee-oriented character, for example, could take a few levels of fighter, a few of barbarian, a few of ranger, a smattering of PrCs, and end up with 20 BAB, the same HP as a straight fighter, plus a ton of special abilities that trump most feat-trees or combination of feat-trees. Even if you don't need 20 BAB (say, 16 BAB minimum for 4 attacks), that's 4 levels of 0 BAB increase you can play around with. Plus, the difference between 19 BAB and 18 BAB is almost nothing. +1 to attack is a wimpy difference if that extra level buys some colorful special ability from a PrC. Same with HP. A few d6's and d8s won't hurt you if you get some Uncanny Dodges or other cool stuff because of them. Especially since CON ends up being a good third of your HP, and feat-selection is replaced by special abilities. That's what multiclassing as a melee-character is all about, really--replacing the fighter's feat selection with pre-selected PrC special abilities. Characters devoted to magic, however, get spanked. A caster's main strength is his spells, which do not come inherently from HD. In other words, while martial combatants get increases to their power (BAB, HP, feats) from almost all classes he picks, casters do not. Anything less than full caster progression--even if it's one level--is significantly less powerful than a full caster of the same level. This means, among other things, that any PrC offering less than full progression is immediately pushed to the "maybe for a gish" pile. Okay, so what if the special abilities given by the PrC are damn cool, you ask? How many of these PrCs actually give that kind of special ability, I ask you? Oooh, the Mindbender gets "suggestion" 1/day at level 2! That really makes up for the 4th level slot I lost by not getting the 7th level Wiz progression! To further my point, let's look at gishes. What are gishes? A balance of the martial arts and the arcane arts? No way. They're martial combatants who use a smattering of the arcane to boost themselves. A gish can have any range of caster progression and still develop a consistent strategy in combat. Only 2nd level spells? That's okay, True Strike and Mirror Image are your friends. 8th level spells? Cast Repusion and plink away with your bow. A side effect, probably the most agitating one, is the woefully short list of available races for casters to pick from. A melee character can be anything and still get BAB, HP, and feats. Racial HD are still HD, and HD are all that's needed for BAB, HP, and feats. So Kickbutt the melee combatant can be a troll, or a hill giant, or a thri-kreen, or any of a million races that give at least 3/4 BAB and d8. Everything except fey and undead give at least 3/4 BAB, and only fey give less than d8 HD. Kickbutt can make up the couple of lost BAB with the rest of his 20 alloted levels, no problem. Meanwhile, Doofus the wizard gets to be... an ethergaunt. Always the ethergaunt. Plus, it's unclear as to whether Doofus's Wizard levels stack with the effective wizard levels from his ethergaunt abilities. In any case, isn't it a little disheartening that wizards and sorcerors with more than 3 racial HD will never get to cast 9th level spells? They say illithids like to be wizards. Yeah well illithids must play DnD with a variant 30-level cap. Perhaps all of this is a result of an increasing marginal utility of higher level spells, and a relatively constant marginal utility of increasing BAB and HP. Because taking away a level of wizard takes away wiz20 and not wiz11, you get beat with a "haha you suck" stick. That's all fine and dandy, but don't you think that's restrictive? It's about ten times harder to optimize a full-caster than a meleer, but maybe that's just because the resulting caster is more powerful than the meleer. Except that's not necessarily true. Against equal foes, a frenzied 'zerker is no less effective than an incantatrix. Maybe it's all a result of WotC trying to break away from 2E's unbelievably overpowered mages. But, dammit, don't overcompensate.
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 02:01 PM	1) I essentially agree with you and as a frequent spellcasting player it does suck! 2) Even though spellcasting is less flexible when it comes to losing a caster level for multi-classing, prestige classes and non-standard race selection, spellcaster are still more powerful over all than non-spellcasters. 3) Optimization cannot solve this problem only D&D 4E can. Necro
Alratan 01-29-05, 02:06 PM	Meanwhile, Doofus the wizard gets to be... an ethergaunt. Always the ethergaunt Come on - if he was Doofus the sorcerer, he could be a sharn, and kick much ass.
danielinthewolvesden 01-29-05, 02:37 PM	And it relates to optimization: Characters mainly devoted to melee- and ranged-combat have these stats to worry about: BAB, HP, and feats. A melee-oriented character, for example, could take a few levels of fighter, a few of barbarian, a few of ranger, a smattering of PrCs, and end up with 20 BAB, the same HP as a straight fighter, plus a ton of special abilities that trump most feat-trees or combination of feat-trees. Characters devoted to magic, however, get spanked. A caster's main strength is his spells, which do not come inherently from HD. In other words, while martial combatants get increases to their power (BAB, HP, feats) from almost all classes he picks, casters do not. Anything less than full caster progression--even if it's one level--is significantly less powerful than a full caster of the same level. A side effect, probably the most agitating one, is the woefully short list of available races for casters to pick from. A melee character can be anything and still get BAB, HP, and feats. Racial HD are still HD, and HD are all that's needed for BAB, HP, and feats. . 1. No, he can't- as he'll be paying a 20% eps penalty very likely. And, one of the main strengths of a warrior type is BAB- if you take a class with less than full BAB, you'll never make it up. Take a class with crud HP and you'll die. 2. Since Wizards, Clerics & druids all get level 9 spells bfore they turn Epic, yes, you can afford to give up a caster level. Essentially, that's what Sorcerors & Favoured Souls do to get Spiontaneus casting, and it works for them. Admittedly, Full Caster Progression is best, but you can afford to lose one. 3. Well, Spellcasters can play any races that doesn't have more than one racial level or LA. Warrior types can't afford to give up too many LA either- they NEED the HP. And, as I have said- loss of full +1 BAB hurts a warrior about as much as loss of a caster level hurts a spellcaster. Ok, I do admit that warrior types have more flexibility. This doesn't come close to offsetting the HUGE advantage that Spellcasters get in pwer- esp at the higher levels. Here are the results of my "big (sorta) poll on class power": You might find these results interesting...or not. "Ok, here are the results. We had a lot of replies (this thread was both in "Classes & Prestige Classes" and in "Character Optimization"), and I was able to count around 30 of them for this "poll" (which is pretty darn good, thus this- albeit unscientific- has some validity). The results are below. Note that with that many responses, results are skewed toward the media, of course. The places start with my original ratings, in that order (down to Healer). *= not enough responses for this to mean much D= highly debated- the numbers were all over the place C= Consensus- we were remarkably in agreement. 9.4 Druid C 8.6 Wizard C 8.6 Cleric 7.5 Psychic Warrior 7.5 Favoured Soul, 6.5 Warmage 5.4 Monk 5.8 Barbarian, 7.4 Spirit Shaman D 4.1 Ninja 5.9 Rogue, 5.5 Scout, 3.7 Swashbuckler D 6.4 Sorc D 4.0 Marshal, 4.2 Hexblade, 5.2 Ranger C 5.0 Paladin C 3.5 Fighter 4.7 Bard D!!!!! 2.4 Samurai C 1.5 Healer C 8.1 Psion C 2.4 Soulknife C 7.7 Wu Jen C 6.6 Shugenja 5.6 Wilder 3.8 Spellthief * 6.2 Warlock 8.6 Artificer *C" The highest polling warrior is Barbarian. 12 Spellcasting classes are above him. In fact, of the 30 classes listed, the top 12 are spellcasters*. They completely dominate the game in the higher levels. So- don't cry about Spellcasters. :rolleyes: *Yes, the Psychic Warrior is sorta a Gish rather than a full spellcaster.
catharz 01-29-05, 02:47 PM	Characters devoted to magic, however, get spanked. Ok, I do admit that warrior types have more flexibility. WHAT GAME HAVE YOU BEEN PLAYING??? THAT IS NOT THE D&D 3E THAT I KNOW! Seriously. In my experience, while loosing caster levels does suck, being a partial caster is still almost alwas better than not being a caster as well. Frank has stated the problem pretty well. Casters get Options as a class ability. Warriors get Bonuses as a class ability. Casters get Options that give them Bonuses. Therefore, Casters win. It isn't 100% true (There are a number of feats that actually give a range of very good options.) However, and caster can pick up Combat reflexes and Close-quarters defense. Warriors find it much more difficult to get 6th- and 9th-level spells.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 03:08 PM	Let me say, first, that I had to go through my post and edit out the profanity because that's how stupid your post was. But I'll be sweet, I promise. 1. No, he can't- as he'll be paying a 20% eps penalty very likely. And, one of the main strengths of a warrior type is BAB- if you take a class with less than full BAB, you'll never make it up. Take a class with crud HP and you'll die. What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about base classes. This IS the optimization board, after all, and we DO know what a "prestige class" is. There are tons of prestige classes, honey. When you say "one of the main strengths of a warrior type is BAB," I know for a fact you didn't actually read my post carefully. That was my major point, dammit. Again, I addressed the less-than-full BAB point in my OP. I said: Even if you don't need 20 BAB (say, 16 BAB minimum for 4 attacks), that's 4 levels of 0 BAB increase you can play around with. Plus, the difference between 19 BAB and 18 BAB is almost nothing. +1 to attack is a wimpy difference if that extra level buys some colorful special ability from a PrC. Do you really think that the difference between 19 BAB and 18 BAB is the same as the difference between two level 9 spells and three? 2. Since Wizards, Clerics & druids all get level 9 spells bfore they turn Epic, yes, you can afford to give up a caster level. Essentially, that's what Sorcerors & Favoured Souls do to get Spiontaneus casting, and it works for them. Admittedly, Full Caster Progression is best, but you can afford to lose one. It's not just about losing one 8th and one 9th level spell by not reaching lvl 20. It's about ALWAYS being one level behind, ALWAYS lacking that extra higher level spell, ALWAYS missing the spell resistence DC. In addition, getting one 9th level spell at caster progression level 17 is really not that great. You get one 9th level spell, while a full caster gets FOUR. In addition you have half as many 8th level spells. 3. Well, Spellcasters can play any races that doesn't have more than one racial level or LA. Warrior types can't afford to give up too many LA either- they NEED the HP. And, as I have said- loss of full +1 BAB hurts a warrior about as much as loss of a caster level hurts a spellcaster. I'm going to quote my OP again, this time on the issue of HP: Same with HP. A few d6's and d8s won't hurt you if you get some Uncanny Dodges or other cool stuff because of them. Especially since CON ends up being a good third of your HP, and feat-selection is replaced by special abilities. Think about it: Assuming 16 CON (not unreasonable for a melee character) dropping down to d8 +3 from d10 +3 is only a 11.7% decrease in HP. And that's just for that level. Assuming you take, say, five levels of d8's, you lose out on 5 HP, (d10 - d8 = avg of 1), which will be 5 / (15d10 + 5d8 + 20*3) = 3.03% of your health. Even if you take some d6's, that's only -2HP per level. Not a big deal. Ok, I do admit that warrior types have more flexibility. This doesn't come close to offsetting the HUGE advantage that Spellcasters get in pwer- esp at the higher levels. Really? Have you seen a frenzied 'zerker in action? Maybe you're thinking of 2E. Here are the results of my "big (sorta) poll on class power" (...yadda yadda yadda...) The highest polling warrior is Barbarian. 12 Spellcasting classes are above him. In fact, of the 30 classes listed, the top 12 are spellcasters*. They completely dominate the game in the higher levels. This perfectly illustrates the problem with polls. No, not that they're biased or have some lurking variable--that's easy to figure out, and people notice it. The problem is that they're misunderstood. Your poll is asking what people think about the relative power of BASE CLASSES, without multiclassing and without PrCs. Why else are the fighter and the sorceror so low? Going straight sorceror is plain stupid, since it is the only base class in 3.5E that doesn't actually give anything past level 1, if you exclude the advancement of the familiar. It also explains why the Druid is so high--a Druid doesn't need PrCs nearly as much as other base classes do, so a straight druid ranks high among other straight-base class builds. The fighter's bonus feats are generally less powerful than the pre-selected special abilities PrCs give. But you would have gotten that by reading my OP instead of doing this: :rolleyes:
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 03:16 PM	Really? Have you seen a frenzied 'zerker in action? Maybe you're thinking of 2E. A well designed full-caster level Wizard + PrCs can house a 'zerker lets be real about that. Necro
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 03:18 PM	WHAT GAME HAVE YOU BEEN PLAYING??? THAT IS NOT THE D&D 3E THAT I KNOW! Calm down there, buddy. Maybe posting on a messageboard is not something you want to do from now on. You know, for your heart's sake. Seriously. In my experience, while loosing caster levels does suck, being a partial caster is still almost alwas better than not being a caster as well. Uh. And here I thought you were an optimizer after reading your various builds. The basic concept of optimizing is having the character do something well. At level 20 that could mean hitting them with a greataxe to do a truckload of damage, or having a nice pack of level 9 spells to throw around. You could enhance your greataxe-wielding abilities by dropping a couple BAB and some HP in exchange for True Strike a few times a day--that would still be optimization. But exchanging a few level 9 spells for a few BAB when your BAB is already pretty dismal--that's worthless. A wizard will NOT be swinging a greataxe around at the higher levels. BAB to him is useless. A warrior, however, can definitely benefit from the added special abilities of PrCs that don't give full BAB or d10s. Again, it's all about marginal utility. Losing a few BAB when you have 20 is not that big of a deal, but losing caster progression levels when you have 20 is a DAMN big deal. Frank has stated the problem pretty well. Casters get Options as a class ability. Warriors get Bonuses as a class ability. Casters get Options that give them Bonuses. Therefore, Casters win. Yeah that's fine--when you have full caster progression. However, and caster can pick up Combat reflexes and Close-quarters defense. Warriors find it much more difficult to get 6th- and 9th-level spells. Warriors can pick up True Strike. Casters find it much more difficult to get past golems' DR with a sword.
Zubon 01-29-05, 03:18 PM	Catharz is so right that there isn't really room left for discussion. Given the choice between either having 9th level spells or having +16 BAB, six feats, and any three fighter-type PrC special abilities, you take the caster unless you plan to fight entirely in anti-magic zones. A poorly optimized caster does horrible things to a fully optimized fighter-type. If you want to use the Hurling Hulker as your example non-caster, then you have an argument. If you want to send your Frenzied Berserker against an even-level caster who sees you at least 100' away, you are going to have a bad day.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 03:21 PM	A well designed full-caster level Wizard + PrCs can house a 'zerker lets be real about that. If you want to send your Frenzied Berserker against an even-level caster who sees you at least 100' away, you are going to have a bad day. Why does nobody read OPs carefully around here? Let me quote myself again, re-emphasis new: Against equal foes, a frenzied 'zerker is no less effective than an incantatrix. Most of the time, you'll be fighting monsters. Not other PCs with character classes. I hate it when people compare PCs to PCs in head-to-head combat. In a real game, you fight monsters. And you often fight them in cramped quarters where that fireball won't do much good. Edit: When you say "A poorly optimized caster does horrible things to a fully optimized fighter-type," Zubon, you mean that nobody should ever play a melee-oriented character? And that in a gaming group, whoever calls dibs first gets to play the wizard? And that whoever has the "burden" of playing the melee character would probably rather play a caster? Or perhaps you're just wrong.
Zubon 01-29-05, 03:30 PM	Your campaigns don't fight things with lots of class levels? Odd. We'll rephrase then: there is almost no situation in which a fighter-type will outperform a caster-type, if bother are optimized to deal with that situation, and the caster-type will retain more flexibility to deal with other situations and will be able to counter that fighter-type directly. The worst-case scenario I have seen anyone bring against a caster is a golem radiating an anti-magic field, ala Epic Level Handbook, and casters with Telekinesis can deal with them rather easily. Against equal foes, a frenzied 'zerker is almost always less effective than an incantatris. If you cannot name 10 foes that fit your statement, you are just trolling. Edit: given the edited response, okay, he is just trolling. Move along.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 03:39 PM	Actually, you sound like the troll here. You are LITERALLY saying that a poorly optimized caster is ALMOST ALWAYS BETTER than a well-optimized melee character? Logically, assuming that players always would rather be "better," this implies that players would ALWAYS rather be a caster than a melee character. This, in turn, implies that, assuming parties are balanced and contain both melee and magic users, the players playing melee PCs would rather be playing the magic users. Where's the trolling in my reasoning?
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 03:43 PM	You are LITERALLY saying that a poorly optimized caster is ALMOST ALWAYS BETTER than a well-optimized melee character? This is not trollish-ness this is a D&D 3E reality and it becomes more and more true the higher in level you go. The melee characters have a small edge from level 1-5 but after that it goes downhill for them rather quickly. Necro
Skulan 01-29-05, 03:46 PM	I see some ogrish statements, but no trolls. Really, it seems to me it's a matter of timing. In a 20th level game, you want to be a caster. You have a lot more options, and can handle just about any situation. The melee-type has to rely on magic items to keep himself effective, as a single flying foe makes the berserker just another guy. That said, though, a 1st level barbarian rocks compared to a 1st level wizard. In fact, in the early game, playing a standard melee combatant can be quite a lot of fun, while the caster types often have to live in fear, and worry about running out of spells, and make sure they have some melee guys in front of them to block the horde. Casters, in general, start weak, end strong. Melee guys start strong, end somewhat weaker than the casters (in general scope, not situational effectiveness). That's all. Most of the games I play never make it to 20th level. In fact, I think I've been in only one or two that made it beyond 10th. Going melee is a perfectly reasonable choice if you don't expect to spend a lot of time in the high-powered portion of the game. And even then, it's not as if you're useless. You just can't call down the pain that a fully tricked-out caster can. But you can still contribute, and you can still have fun. So why bother comparing? People play what they want to play, and I know folks who simply don't want to bother with casters, and stick to the simplicity of a warrior. To each his own. -Skulan
Neeek 01-29-05, 03:47 PM	Oooh, the Mindbender gets "suggestion" 1/day at level 2! That really makes up for the 4th level slot I lost by not getting the 7th level Wiz progression! So the Mindbender is a bad PrC to take more than 1 level in(Really bad in this case. Let's see, I can cast Suggestion once a day, *or* I can get a 4th level slot that can hold a Suggestion with a +1 metamagic on it, or any other 4 level spell. Tough choice.) In the CW alone there are easily 15 PrCs that aren't worth taking even 1 level in. Perhaps all of this is a result of an increasing marginal utility of higher level spells, and a relatively constant marginal utility of increasing BAB and HP. Because taking away a level of wizard takes away wiz20 and not wiz11, you get beat with a "haha you suck" stick. That's all fine and dandy, but don't you think that's restrictive? It's about ten times harder to optimize a full-caster than a meleer, but maybe that's just because the resulting caster is more powerful than the meleer. Except that's not necessarily true. Against equal foes, a frenzied 'zerker is no less effective than an incantatrix. Your basic premise is flawed. There are maybe 5 or 6 11th+ builds(and, frankly, it's a stretch to even say that many. The real answer is 0) that can match the power *or* the flexibility of a full caster. FB/BW bulds are probably the most powerful of all the fighting class builds, and they would get crushed against any caster who was interested in taking them down. No contest. Maybe it's all a result of WotC trying to break away from 2E's unbelievably overpowered mages. But, dammit, don't overcompensate. Seriously. Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are so powerful they make non-casting pointless. Druids become the most vertisle and powerful melee class at 6th level on. Clerics are the best ranged combat class from 7th level on. And Wizards can just take any spell progression PrC and get benefits for nothing of value whenever they qualify, as well as just plain destroy any non-caster they want at level 9.
Rod Howard 01-29-05, 04:12 PM	Bunch of nonsense. If you plan a character progression, you first think of what you NEED. A character can be effective even with less than +16 BAB or 17/18 Caster Level. You want to deal thousands of damage before your enemy can react? Be a Iaijutsu Master and take enough sorcerer or wizard levels to cast Grease the needed number of times per day but don't be obsessed with Caster Level, it would be USELESS for you to have a high one: you decided to deal damage with Iaijutsu Focus, spells would be redundant. Want to be a good caster who can fight when he runs out of spells? Sublime Chord's the answer, or any other gish build out there. True, gishes should be mainly fighters, but with our current books we can make a 16+ BAB character with at least CL 17, so he won't be a lot less behind a pure caster. This way, being spellcasting stronger than melee combat, most people prefer to act as standard spellcasters when the game gets hard: combat abilities become some sort of backup (and a damn useful backup). Usually, having either a BAB of 16+ OR a BASE (without Practiced Spellcaster feat) Caster Level of 17+ is the best solution, but that's not always true. Wanna be an optimizer? Plan your character and do what you need: don't be afraid of loosing caster levels or BAB points. If your idea turns out to be strong aniway, stick with it. I think every character should be planned with these things in mind: - Damage output (how do I hit my enemy? How do I damage him BADLY? How can I kill or make him harmless without actually dealing damage? Anything is fine as long as you get the job done) - Defense (ok, they stab me with a sword / throw me a fireball, how can I survive enough punishment? So, this takes in account saves, hit points, abilities like Evasion, spells like Starmantle, healing abilities or things like that) - Support (this is everything that helps a character out in a way or another. For example, divination spells, Track, Open Locks or Leomund's Secret Shelter) If a party can deal enough Damage (Artificier, Iaijutsu Master, Frenzied Berserk or any other nuker), has enough Defense (someone who heals, someone who buffs, a tank who takes the beating) and enough Support (someone who tells them where to go when they don't know what to do or opens a door no one else can open, for example), it will be a successful party. What are casters good for? They can usually cover all of these areas by themself. Clerics, Druids and even Wizards can solo and face each and every situation, other PURE classes cannot. Someone is flying above yeh head? If you are a fighter, you suck and die. If you are a caster, you blast the pesky thing. Big boss behind a force field or you stuck in a force cage? If you are a fighter, you suck and die. If you are a caster, you simply get out. Someone's trying to kill you? As a fighter, you survive because you've got a load of hit points. As a caster, you'll have a good Contingency prepared to save your butt. You are trying to kill someone? As a fighter or other non-caster, you go and stab the bastard. As a caster, you go and nuke the bastard or stop his heart or blow up his head or disintegrate him or stuff like that. Casters do a lot of extra stuff, which isn't always needed to perform well in a three or four people party, but always helpful.
RadicalTaoist 01-29-05, 04:55 PM	:rofl: Oh, this is rich. The casters are too weak in 3ed? OMG NOOOO, I didn't specialize and I can only catch non-casters in a deathtrap that their saves are useless against 5 times a day! I have to settle for summoning creatures that will bleed a fighter cold and then blasting them the rest of the time! I might have to spend my precious spell slots on transporting myself away in a manner that makes it entirely impossible for non-casters to follow me (in fact, even half or two-thirds casters will find it near impossible to follow). I take the example of big large nasty monsters the party will be fighting most of the time. At the high levels, that clever 16 BAB build is going to be at negative hps within two full attacks from a dragon. Or a full attack and a spell. DR is harder to beat/bypass than SR. I have seen many a high level encounter result in the barb (who is a popular melee choice due to his being able to die upon the 4th draconic full attack) trying his best to slow the monster down long enough for the casters to prepare sufficient ownage. Let's take a look at optimization and PrC choices. Take a Wizard 4/Rogue1/Daggerspell Mage6/Invisible Blade1/Arcane Trickster8. You can look at it and say "What the hell, he only gets 1 9th level spell if he doesn't specialize!" Or you can look at it and say "If he contingencies Tenser's Transformation to go off when he casts Nightstalker's Transformation, he'll give up spellcasting to end up with better hp and saves than a Fighter, perfect BAB, and +11d6 Sneak Attack, using one 5th and two 6th level spells - how expensive are Pearls of Power anyway?" This is of course assuming our boy didn't take the Otherworldly feat (or is a native outsider) and Draconic Polymorphed into a Kelvezu - or used Shapechange to become one. That would give him better staying power in combat than a barb and a grand total of +17d6 sneak attack. There's no way in hell any combination of fighter, rogue, ranger, and PrCs is going to come close to that, and even the best combat builds are hard pressed to keep up with this trick without Kelvezu transformation. And that's just one of the many tricks this caster will have up his sleeve. Casters are hard to optimize? Please.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 05:09 PM	Let me make something clear which I fear I had not in the OP. The whole point of this thread is the restrictiveness of the rules structure for MULTICLASSING A SPELLCASTER. When I said "Characters devoted to magic, however, get spanked" in the OP, I should have added "when they try to acquire special abilities via other base classes/PrCs." My whole point is that a fighter can do his fighting stuff and add on a little casting on the side, or a little raging on the side, or a little sneak attack on the side, or any of a thousand special abilities PrCs grant on the side, and not lose any significant amount of his overall power. On the other hand, a spellcaster cannot. If he wanted to add a little somethin'-somethin' on the side, he would have to give up an inordinate amount of power. There are maybe 5 or 6 11th+ builds(and, frankly, it's a stretch to even say that many. The real answer is 0) that can match the power *or* the flexibility of a full caster. (emphasis mine) Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are so powerful they make non-casting pointless. From all of you, I gather that a full caster is a force to be reckoned with, correct? And it can be argued that missing more than three levels of a full progression severely reduces that power, correct? Thus, I don't see the problem with my OP. Regardless of the relative power of arcane vs. melee, an arcane build values those last levels immensely, yes? So then taking a half-progression PrC to get some nifty abilities is a terrible idea, yes? (Remember, full casters are so powerful "they make non-casting pointless.") In fact, losing even three or more casting progression levels is a terrible idea, yes? So then the structure 3.5E has in place for multiclassing a spellcaster, especially given the ratio of full-caster-progression PrCs to non-full PrCs, is an extremely restrictive one, YES? In addition, none of you have actually responded to my assertion that optimized casters can almost never be of a non-standard race. Since they're so powerful as full-casters, it is almost never worth it to acquire racial HD, right? Basically, this is what I gather from what you guys have said: Because the spellcaster has so much power naturally, he doesn't deserve any of the special abilities other characters can gain from multiclassing or entering specialized PrCs. He also doesn't deserve to be of a nonstandard race. I think that's a load of fondoo. Edit: I might have to spend my precious spell slots on transporting myself away in a manner that makes it entirely impossible for non-casters to follow me (in fact, even half or two-thirds casters will find it near impossible to follow).Gee, apparently half and 2/3-casters are pretty damn useless compared to full-casters. Radical, you get baited too easily. I dangle a worm and you bite right on.
Neeek 01-29-05, 05:21 PM	Basically, this is what I gather from what you guys have said: Because the spellcaster has so much power naturally, he doesn't deserve any of the special abilities other characters can gain from multiclassing or entering specialized PrCs. He also doesn't deserve to be of a nonstandard race. I think that's a load of fondoo. Well, your entire premise is poorly reasoned. Having racial HD and LAs is bad for everyone. Class levels are nearly always better than what you get for giving them up. This isn't a caster-only thing. It's an all-class thing. The reason "giving up a caster level" is a bad idea is simply because almost none of them are anywhere near as powerful as just getting your next level of spells. The reason that multiclassing out of warrior class is is so easy is because the abilities they get for continuing pretty much suck accross the board. Barbs get more from their 1st level than they do from any 3 other levels. Fighters get more from their first 2 than any other 3 consequtive. Paladins get everything worth having by level 5, other than their spells, so if you don't want to cast, you can leave without regrets right then.
Skulan 01-29-05, 05:26 PM	I think part of the reason spellcasters have fewer multiclassing options is because they need fewer multiclassing options. It's not just a matter of what they deserve. If you made a class that grants full spellcasting progression, a d10 hit die, full bab, all good saves, and lets you apply metamagic feats for free, you have the perfect casting PrC. You also have something that nobody will not take, and a horrible balance issue on your hands for anybody who doesn't want to play a caster. The sheer multitude of options that a base caster has, by virtue of the number of spells they have access to, allows them great versatility without multiclassing. The thuggish types need to multiclass further to get some of that same versatility, and thus have more options. The race issue is another matter. High LA creatures make lousy casters, true. But compared to any other first level wizard, they rock beyond belief. I personally wouldn't want to see a 20th level ilithid wizard before epic levels. If such a thing were to happen, whatever they faced would be in deep, deep trouble. Such things may not make sense in terms of the gaming world, but make a whole lot of sense when you consider game balance. And really, that's why the rules exist as they do. -Skulan
catharz 01-29-05, 05:31 PM	From all of you, I gather that a full caster is a force to be reckoned with, correct? And it can be argued that missing more than three levels of a full progression severely reduces that power, correct? Thus, I don't see the problem with my OP. Regardless of the relative power of arcane vs. melee, an arcane build values those last levels immensely, yes? There seems to be a very basic point you are missing. You say that a 15th level druid is less powerful than a 18th level druid, which is obviously true. You also point out that a barbarian 15/fighter 3 is about as powerful as a barbarian 18, which is also true. Now here is where you go wrong: You make an intuitive leap, and say that a 15th level druid is less powerful than a barbarian 15/fighter 3. That simply isn't true. A well-played 15th level druid will massacre a well-played 18th level warrior-type every single time. And the druid will also contribute more to a party in and out of combat. So the real problem is just the exponential power progression of spell levels vs. the linear power progression of everything else.
danielinthewolvesden 01-29-05, 05:41 PM	What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about base classes. This IS the optimization board, after all, and we DO know what a "prestige class" is. There are tons of prestige classes, honey. When you say "one of the main strengths of a warrior type is BAB," I know for a fact you didn't actually read my post carefully. That was my major point, dammit. Again, I addressed the less-than-full BAB point in my OP. I said: Do you really think that the difference between 19 BAB and 18 BAB is the same as the difference between two level 9 spells and three? Really? Have you seen a frenzied 'zerker in action? Maybe you're thinking of 2E. The fighter's bonus feats are generally less powerful than the pre-selected special abilities PrCs give. But you would have gotten that by reading my OP instead of doing this: 1. Your actual words "A melee-oriented character, for example, could take a few levels of fighter, a few of barbarian, a few of ranger," That is three (3) base classes by my count, and thus generally subject to a 20% eps penalty. 2. Oh, I read your post. Somehow you must have the idea that just by someone reading your post they will magically agree with your post. I don't because it's dead & completely wrong. 3. Sure, there is not a lot of difference between a19 & 18 BAB. But there is MILES of difference bewteen a 6 & a 5 BAB. BAB not only gives you +1 to hit, it also gives you multiple attacks, and with the proper feats allows you to add+2 to damage or +1 to AC- as needed. 4. Frenzied Berserkers are NPC classes, and they are easliy taken out by a number of "will save or die" spells or even "you get no save and you die". Even a 2nd level strength drain spell, properly boosted will drop a FB in his tracks- no save, no recourse. 5. Indeed- a single feat is often less powerful than a single PrC class ability. (but can you name a class ability better than "Luck of Heroes"?) But the whole point is that the Fighter gets to pick and choose amoung the best and assemble his custom built fighter. With PrC's you have to take the chaff along with the wheat, not to mention usually "wasting" a feat or two and some SkP trying to qualify for the PrC. You OP makes a few points here and there. What is mainly wrong with it is it's entireity not it's part. You seem to think that Spellcasters are nerfed and warrior classes are made better than them. Whereas in fact- and in general consensus- that's just the opposite. There is nigh complete & general agreement that at the higher levels "wizards rule, fighters drool". Trying to generate pity for the "poor abused Spellcaster" is laughable. They utterly and completely dominate the game at the higher levels. Not just my opinion- the general consensus opinion of a good number on these boards. And of course, you forget the Skill based PC- who desperately NEEDS to take his first level as a class with a high skill point progression. Try running a rogue whose 1st level was "monstrous humanoid' and you'll see what I mean. But in general- it's a bad idea for ANY class to take levels of monster (well, maybe except Outsider) and to have any race with an LA higher than +1. Try getting hit with a Blasphemy spell when your Hit Dice are 4 fewer than the party and see what happens. :b: :ghosted: Yeah, Warrior types have a bit more flexability than spellcasters- this in no way offsets the HUGE power difference at the higher levels. Of course, Zubcon could be right about this whole OP, and we're just wasting our time & breath. :P
RadicalTaoist 01-29-05, 05:45 PM	Oh, I misunderstood ancalimohtar. Well, I'd have to say he has a point, notwithstanding the fact that it's easier to get capabilities through spells than through PrCs, and that there are plenty of full/nearly full casting PrCs that grant cool abilities anyway. Like Catharz said, if that druid 15 wants to go Rog3 for some evasion, sneak attack, and trapfinding, then yeah he loses spells - but can still mop the floor with everyone. I wouldn't say it's a problem. The real problem, as Catharz said, is the fact that casters own everything else, be it melee abilities, technical abilities, or a combination of the two. That's a problem I was trying to address with my variant Ranger.
DungeonMaster 01-29-05, 05:50 PM	Now here is where you go wrong: You make an intuitive leap, and say that a 15th level druid is less powerful than a barbarian 15/fighter 3. That simply isn't true. A well-played 15th level druid will massacre a well-played 18th level warrior-type every single time. And the druid will also contribute more to a party in and out of combat. I actually beleive that in the core game 3rd edition game (not 3.5) as designed these things don't happen and the game is quite fair even to the high levels. Do you care to create a core 3rd edition druid with 200 000 GP worth of gear against a core 3rd edition warrior of my creation with 440 000 GP worth of gear to test your claim? Standard array: 15,14,13,12,10,8. Plain core items, nothing fancy or requiring DM intepretation.
catharz 01-29-05, 06:19 PM	I actually beleive that in the core game 3rd edition game (not 3.5) as designed these things don't happen and the game is quite fair even to the high levels. Do you care to create a core 3rd edition druid with 200 000 GP worth of gear against a core 3rd edition warrior of my creation with 440 000 GP worth of gear to test your claim? Standard array: 15,14,13,12,10,8. Plain core items, nothing fancy or requiring DM intepretation. So, you're saying that, using an outdated rules system and a nonstandard character creation method designed to maximize the effectiveness of non-casters, you can beat a 13th level primary spellcaster using an NPC class of 18th level and DMG-only magic EQ. OK, I'll rise to that challange. Of course, it will take me a while to find a 3.0e copy of the SRD...
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 06:27 PM	System Reference Document v3.0 (WotC) (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html) [Download] (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/3E/wotc.zip) And why not compare 20th level 3.0 Druid with a Fighter and have both of them granted the same starting gp's instead of the bizarre arrangement suggested by DungeonMaster? Necro
Neeek 01-29-05, 06:41 PM	And why not compare 20th level 3.0 Druid with a Fighter and have both of them granted the same starting gp's instead of the bizarre arrangement suggested by DungeonMaster? Necro The point was a Druid of 15th level is better than a Fighter/Barb etc of 18th level. A Druid of 20th level is should cream 3 or 4 Fighters of 20th level with little problem. I'm having trouble remembering though. Does the Trip technique work in 3.0 or not?
DungeonMaster 01-29-05, 06:53 PM	And why not compare 20th level 3.0 Druid with a Fighter and have both of them granted the same starting gp's instead of the bizarre arrangement suggested by DungeonMaster? Bizarre? That's standard wealth and the standard array! Anyhow, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Let's see how it turns out.
DungeonMaster 01-29-05, 06:58 PM	So, you're saying that, using an outdated rules system and a nonstandard character creation method designed to maximize the effectiveness of non-casters, you can beat a 13th level primary spellcaster using an NPC class of 18th level and DMG-only magic EQ. 15th level for you and it's the "standard" array, just like rolling 4d6 drop one you're not guaranteed what you want. Your claim didn't come with bells and whistles attached to it so I presumed it valid in "standard" circumstances. No silly prestige classes and non core nonsense that everyone is so fond of assuming as realistic in this neck of the internet woods. And yes, no 3.5 nonsense, let's go to the root of the matter not the poorly designed stepchild. Let's even put a caster level cap on the things we're both allowed to have, 15th at most. That way we don't have to worry about things like you just buying 9th level spell scrolls.
DungeonMaster 01-29-05, 07:00 PM	I'm having trouble remembering though. Does the Trip technique work in 3.0 or not? No tripping is reasonable in 3rd edition.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 07:08 PM	I'm going to have to quote catharz and flip it back on you guys. "There seems to be a very basic point you are missing." I'm not saying with the current system, there should be PrCs that grant full BAB, at least d8, full progression, and loads of special abilities. You all seem to think I am, however. For example: I personally wouldn't want to see a 20th level ilithid wizard before epic levels. If such a thing were to happen, whatever they faced would be in deep, deep trouble. Such things may not make sense in terms of the gaming world, but make a whole lot of sense when you consider game balance. And really, that's why the rules exist as they do. I'm saying the CURRENT STRUCTURE upon which you guys are arguing is flawed. If the rules were different so that the gigantic upshoot of power for casters is changed to match a relatively stable progression of power for warriors--or if the warriors' progression of power were changed to match the exploding power of casters--then we wouldn't have this problem of one character not having the option of acquiring racial HD or acquiring special abilities via PrCs. Now here is where you go wrong: You make an intuitive leap, and say that a 15th level druid is less powerful than a barbarian 15/fighter 3.Where did I say that, imply that, use that as an assumption for an argument, or in any way express that? 1. Your actual words "A melee-oriented character, for example, could take a few levels of fighter, a few of barbarian, a few of ranger," That is three (3) base classes by my count, and thus generally subject to a 20% eps penalty. Perhaps you are not familiar with the 3 and 3.5E XP penalty rules. Allow me to quote the Player's Handbook: Even Levels: If your multiclass character’s classes are nearly the same level (all within one class level of each other), then he or she can balance the needs of the multiple classes without penalty. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue takes no penalty, nor does a 2nd-level fighter/2nd-level wizard/3rd-level rogue. 2. Oh, I read your post. Somehow you must have the idea that just by someone reading your post they will magically agree with your post. I don't because it's dead & completely wrong. 3. Sure, there is not a lot of difference between a19 & 18 BAB. But there is MILES of difference bewteen a 6 & a 5 BAB. BAB not only gives you +1 to hit, it also gives you multiple attacks, and with the proper feats allows you to add+2 to damage or +1 to AC- as needed.That's interesting, because it seems to me I specifically said in my OP, and which I had already re-quoted for you, "Even if you don't need 20 BAB (say, 16 BAB minimum for 4 attacks), that's 4 levels of 0 BAB increase you can play around with." That implies that I consider 16 BAB a good minimum to go by, because I know 4 attacks is important. So what were you saying about having read my post? 5. Indeed- a single feat is often less powerful than a single PrC class ability. (but can you name a class ability better than "Luck of Heroes"?) But the whole point is that the Fighter gets to pick and choose amoung the best and assemble his custom built fighter. With PrC's you have to take the chaff along with the wheat, not to mention usually "wasting" a feat or two and some SkP trying to qualify for the PrC. I really don't want to get tied down with this one issue, but I'll respond to this point really quickly: First of all, Luck of Heroes is nice, but sucks compared to things like Shadow Pounce, Hide in Plain Sight, Improved Power Attack, and other very well-known PrC abilities. Secondly, straight fighters pick their feats while multiclassed fighters pick the PrCs which offter them special abilities. Same thing. You seem to think that Spellcasters are nerfed and warrior classes are made better than them. Whereas in fact- and in general consensus- that's just the opposite. There is nigh complete & general agreement that at the higher levels "wizards rule, fighters drool". Trying to generate pity for the "poor abused Spellcaster" is laughable. They utterly and completely dominate the game at the higher levels. Not just my opinion- the general consensus opinion of a good number on these boards.Again, that's not my point. That was a tangent I got dragged into. In fact, I love playing wizards, and always have. That's the reason I feel restricted by the lack of racial choices and PrC choices. Nobody thinks the spellcaster is "poor" or "abused." Don't build strawmen. And of course, you forget the Skill based PC- who desperately NEEDS to take his first level as a class with a high skill point progression. Try running a rogue whose 1st level was "monstrous humanoid' and you'll see what I mean.How ironic. I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a thri-kreen rogue. Monstrous humanoid. I'll probably be posting him today or tomorrow. The thri-kreen is a perfect example of a race that only a martial combatant can actually take. Why? BECAUSE THE SPECIAL QUALITIES OF THE RACE OUTWEIGH THE BAD FEATURES OF THE RACIAL HD. I'd like my wizard to have four arms and +3 natural armor too, but being 4 levels behind in spellcasting progression outweighs that. Having racial HD and LAs is bad for everyone. Class levels are nearly always better than what you get for giving them up. This isn't a caster-only thing. It's an all-class thing. No, for warriors, racial HD are often worth it. For casters, racial HD are almost never worth it. That's my entire point. Warriors trade class HD for racial HD if they get special racial features and racial special abilities. Casters never trade class HD for racial HD because they don't get the most important thing--spellcasting progression. I just don't understand how none of you except RadicalTaoist EVEN UNDERSTAND what I'm saying. This post is going to be gigantic, but I might as well finish it off with a summary of my argument. Assumptions: 1. Spellcasters' final spellcasting progression levels are extremely important to their power level. 2. Almost no monstrous races give spellcasting progression. 3. Of all the PrCs, only a fraction will provide both a) full caster progression, and b) the correct type of spellcasting progression, to any specific caster. 4. Warriors' last few levels are not extremely important to their power level. 5. Most warriors can drop up to 4 BAB and not lose too much power. 5. Most warriors can replace a good number of their d10s with d8s and not lose too much power. 6. Warriors' most important statistics come from the acquisition of HD, which can come from class levels OR racial HD. 7. A significant portion of PrCs give d8s and above and 3/4 BAB and above. From 1 and 2 we can see that spellcasters essentially must be of the standard races. This means they will almost never have special abilities not given by their spells. From 1 and 3 we can see that spellcasters have very limited options in choosing PrCs and even other base classes to multiclass with. From 4-7 we can see that warriors, on the other hand, can be of nonstandard races, since racial HD will also provice the elements of warriors' power, i.e., BAB, HP, and feats. From 4-7, we can also see that warriors have a much greater selection of PrCs to choose from in acquiring special abilities. From the above deductions, we conclude that spellcasters are essentially forced to be of a standard race and select from a small group of the same PrCs. On the other hand, warriors have a gigantic array of PrCs and types of builds to choose from. This results in: spellcasters being a less diverse lot than warriors in both tactics and class levels, many spellcasting PrCs being unused due simply to not offering full caster progression level, the near-absence of monstrous spellcaster PCs, and a difficulty in crafting full-caster builds that take advantage of special abilities to further enhance their primary power source. (Think about it--we've had the King of Smack, Hulking Hurler, Gatling Chain Gun tripper, and those Sadism/Masochism builds that all broke the game in new and inventive ways. The only caster that has truly done it was the Cheater.) NOTICE THIS ARGUMENT HAS MADE NO MENTION OF THE RELATIVE POWER OF THE TWO TYPES OF CHARACTERS. THAT'S AN INANE AND IRRELEVANT TANGENT.
catharz 01-29-05, 07:18 PM	Where did I say that, imply that, use that as an assumption for an argument, or in any way express that? Y I'm going to quote you and flip it back at you: And it relates to optimization: Characters mainly devoted to melee- and ranged-combat have these stats to worry about: BAB, HP, and feats. A melee-oriented character, for example, could take a few levels of fighter, a few of barbarian, a few of ranger, a smattering of PrCs, and end up with 20 BAB, the same HP as a straight fighter, plus a ton of special abilities that trump most feat-trees or combination of feat-trees. Characters devoted to magic, however, get spanked. A caster's main strength is his spells, which do not come inherently from HD. In other words, while martial combatants get increases to their power (BAB, HP, feats) from almost all classes he picks, casters do not. Anything less than full caster progression--even if it's one level--is significantly less powerful than a full caster of the same level. This means, among other things, that any PrC offering less than full progression is immediately pushed to the "maybe for a gish" pile. Okay, so what if the special abilities given by the PrC are damn cool, you ask? How many of these PrCs actually give that kind of special ability, I ask you? Oooh, the Mindbender gets "suggestion" 1/day at level 2! That really makes up for the 4th level slot I lost by not getting the 7th level Wiz progression! To further my point, let's look at gishes. What are gishes? A balance of the martial arts and the arcane arts? No way. They're martial combatants who use a smattering of the arcane to boost themselves. A gish can have any range of caster progression and still develop a consistent strategy in combat. Only 2nd level spells? That's okay, True Strike and Mirror Image are your friends. 8th level spells? Cast Repusion and plink away with your bow. A side effect, probably the most agitating one, is the woefully short list of available races for casters to pick from. A melee character can be anything and still get BAB, HP, and feats. Racial HD are still HD, and HD are all that's needed for BAB, HP, and feats. So Kickbutt the melee combatant can be a troll, or a hill giant, or a thri-kreen, or any of a million races that give at least 3/4 BAB and d8. Everything except fey and undead give at least 3/4 BAB, and only fey give less than d8 HD. Kickbutt can make up the couple of lost BAB with the rest of his 20 alloted levels, no problem. Meanwhile, Doofus the wizard gets to be... an ethergaunt. Always the ethergaunt. Plus, it's unclear as to whether Doofus's Wizard levels stack with the effective wizard levels from his ethergaunt abilities. In any case, isn't it a little disheartening that wizards and sorcerors with more than 3 racial HD will never get to cast 9th level spells? They say illithids like to be wizards. Yeah well illithids must play DnD with a variant 30-level cap. Perhaps all of this is a result of an increasing marginal utility of higher level spells, and a relatively constant marginal utility of increasing BAB and HP. Because taking away a level of wizard takes away wiz20 and not wiz11, you get beat with a "haha you suck" stick. That's all fine and dandy, but don't you think that's restrictive? It's about ten times harder to optimize a full-caster than a meleer, but maybe that's just because the resulting caster is more powerful than the meleer. Except that's not necessarily true. Against equal foes, a frenzied 'zerker is no less effective than an incantatrix. Maybe it's all a result of WotC trying to break away from 2E's unbelievably overpowered mages. But, dammit, don't overcompensate.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 07:37 PM	Trust me, I would have no qualms about calling you out under normal circumstances, but theres a little thing called the Code of Conduct here. There's no reason for me to risk getting myself banned for the simple pleasure of watching you hurt yourself trying to use the English language. In any case, I really haven't hurled insults around as you think. Catharz can take a simple "are you blind" since he's rather fond of bluntness, himself. Don't worry about him, he's got a good Will save.
Neeek 01-29-05, 07:40 PM	From the above deductions, we conclude that spellcasters are essentially forced to be of a standard race and select from a small group of the same PrCs. On the other hand, warriors have a gigantic array of PrCs and types of builds to choose from. This results in: spellcasters being a less diverse lot than warriors in both tactics and class levels, First, having diverse PrCs doesn't make your character more tactically flexible. This is obvious if for no other reason than the fact that Wizards and Clerics are the most tactically classes by far. And they get new CLASS ABILIIES for every book being used in the game that contains spells. Second, warriors have a gigantic array of PrCs, as do spellcasters, most of which suck for both groups. It's just less obvious for the warrior ones than the caster ones as to *which* suck. Instead of just looking on the right side of the chart and saying "Hmm, no caster progression. Pass." you have to run the number of the class. Most people can't do this. I still get people trying to claim the Soul Knife base class is *good* as written. From CW, there are 2 that are good for Paladins(well, 1.5, the Halfling outrider is the only one that's really strong), 3 that are good for straight fighters, 2 that are good for straight barbs, 1 that's good off of other PrCs, 2 with non-standard races, 1 that's good for Bards, 2 for Gishes(which aren't all that great anyway), 2 for rogues and the rest could never have been printed for all they should be used. That's 15(one of them fits 2 categories) of 36. And 5 of them aren't even good for warrior classes. Your agrument is predicated on the notions that: a) Racial hit dice are somehow good for warriors. This premise is simply false, for 2 reasons. 1) Racial HD always come(as far as I can tell) with Level Adjustments, which are horrible. 2)Racial HD are strictly worse than just getting normal Warrior Levels. That's not a position you want to be in. I'd much rather have a Barb 4/Fighter 2/FB1/BW1 than a Thri-kreen with 3 levels of anything. He has less hp, does less damage, and won't start gaining ever. b) The PrCs that warriors get are somehow powerful. They are, but only in relation to the crappy abilities that they normally get. c) Casters options are somehow limited. They aren't. They have the best class features, the most class features, and they have the greatest degree of tactical flexibility. d) Being required to use PrCs to not become completely useless is inherently better than not needing them at all. Your logic here is horrible. e) That casters can't use PrCs. They can, it's just means they gain less power than they would sticking to normal class progression. In many ways this is a good thing, since that might balance them with the non-casters a little better.
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 08:19 PM	First, having diverse PrCs doesn't make your character more tactically flexible. This is obvious if for no other reason than the fact that Wizards and Clerics are the most tactically classes by far. And they get new CLASS ABILIIES for every book being used in the game that contains spells.Again, don't assume I've said something until you've carefully checked if I've actually said it. I never said anything about flexibility in combat. I merely said spellcasters, as a lot, are less diverse. I agree their flexibility is greater depending on circumstances, as most melee characters generally have pre-determined strategies that involves "buff up" and "smack" and not too much in between. Second, warriors have a gigantic array of PrCs, as do spellcasters, most of which suck for both groups. It's just less obvious for the warrior ones than the caster ones as to *which* suck. Instead of just looking on the right side of the chart and saying "Hmm, no caster progression. Pass." you have to run the number of the class. Most people can't do this. I still get people trying to claim the Soul Knife base class is *good* as written. Except a lot of the classes with full caster progression on the right side of the chart ALSO suck. From CW, (...) That's 15(one of them fits 2 categories) of 36. And 5 of them aren't even good for warrior classes.That's a load more than CA has. Of 20 total PrCs, 10 give full caster progression, has its own spell progression, or even GIVES +1 PROGRESSION AT FIRST LEVEL. Of those 10, about 6 are actually worth taking past the first couple levels, and only three or four are actually good. So like 20% versus 40%. a) Racial hit dice are somehow good for warriors. This premise is simply false, for 2 reasons. 1) Racial HD always come(as far as I can tell) with Level Adjustments, which are horrible. 2)Racial HD are strictly worse than just getting normal Warrior Levels.Wrong. Now I know you can't possibly be saying that this is ALWAYS true, so I'll assume you mean generally. Now, have you ever browsed through this board? Look at the races taken for the various incarnations of the Hulking Hurler. How about the simple Half-Ogre? LA+2. Large size, +6 STR, +2 CON -2 DEX/INT/CHA, +4 nat armor. Who wouldn't sacrifice 2 ECLs for that? There are tons more that people take instead of the standard ones, if they want to be a melee-fighter, but none for spellcasters. The PrCs that warriors get are somehow powerful. They are, but only in relation to the crappy abilities that they normally get.So? That's still an improvement, right? Nobody's comparing across the two spectrums here, like I said. Don't let your disdain for the warrior classes cloud your reasoning. Casters options are somehow limited. They aren't. They have the best class features, the most class features, and they have the greatest degree of tactical flexibility. They are if you're talking about multiclassing options. Which we are. Being required to use PrCs to not become completely useless is inherently better than not needing them at all. Your logic here is horrible.No, Peter Griffin, my logic is fine. You're, again, letting your mindless bias get in the way of your reasoning. I'm not comparing the relative power levels of casters versus warriors. I'm comparing the options the two have. One has options for improvement relative to how he normally does. One doesn't. I don't give a damn if he starts off super powerful, he still has few options for variety. And I think that's a flaw of the 3.0/3.5 system. I'm not saying they should add in uber PrCs for casters, since they're already quite powerful; I'm saying under the current 3.5 rules framework, that's impossible because the framework itself is flawed. e) That casters can't use PrCs. They can, it's just means they gain less power than they would sticking to normal class progression. In many ways this is a good thing, since that might balance them with the non-casters a little better.And I think PrCs should offer the same amount of power increase. If you're trying to nerf one group's PrCs to make up for that group's inherent power superiority, you should either revise the rules system so that that group is not inherently superior, or say "to hell with it" and let the PrCs bring them even more power.
RadicalTaoist 01-29-05, 08:47 PM	http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/boxxmann/1106465780558.gif
DungeonMaster 01-29-05, 08:53 PM	:heehee
danielinthewolvesden 01-29-05, 08:55 PM	Perhaps you are not familiar with the 3 and 3.5E XP penalty rules. Allow me to quote the Player's Handbook: That's interesting, because it seems to me I specifically said in my OP, and which I had already re-quoted for you, "Even if you don't need 20 BAB (say, 16 BAB minimum for 4 attacks), that's 4 levels of 0 BAB increase you can play around with." That implies that I consider 16 BAB a good minimum to go by, because I know 4 attacks is important. So what were you saying about having read my post? I just don't understand how none of you except RadicalTaoist EVEN UNDERSTAND what I'm saying. This post is going to be gigantic, but I might as well finish it off with a summary of my argument. 5. Most warriors can drop up to 4 BAB and not lose too much power. 6. Warriors' most important statistics come from the acquisition of HD, which can come from class levels OR racial HD. 7. A significant portion of PrCs give d8s and above and 3/4 BAB and above. From 1 and 2 we can see that spellcasters essentially must be of the standard races. This means they will almost never have special abilities not given by their spells. From 1 and 3 we can see that spellcasters have very limited options in choosing PrCs and even other base classes to multiclass with. From 4-7 we can see that warriors, on the other hand, can be of nonstandard races, since racial HD will also provice the elements of warriors' power, i.e., BAB, HP, and feats. I certainly am- are you? It is possible to take three (or even 4 or more) classes and not get an eps penalty- but it's difficult and not optimal. Sure, a warrior doesn't need a 20 BAB, he can live with a 16. But here's the point- he can't really afford to take non-fill BAB classes early, as that will cripple him in number of attacks his entire career.... until he gets to BAB 16. I know this, as I have a warrior type who did this- he's two BAB behind a full BAB and it hurts badly at times. So, yes, once a Warrior has maxed out his number of attacks, losing a BAB isn't so bad.... but as you pointed out, that's 16th level. Even then, that +4 BAB can mean +8 damage, +4 to AC or even hitting on a 17 rather than a 20- that's a 300% better chance to hit. BAB is very precious to a warrior. Next- you still think that we don't understand you, since we don't agree with you. No, we do understand you and we still don't agree with you. It's rather egotistical to think that "if others just understood me, they'd all fall in line with my argument". :banghead: True, HD are very important for a warrior- but note most of the "exotic races' you mention have an LA higher than +1- thus the warrior, in taking them, gives up the thing which you claim is most critical. There aren't many races with rare & exotic abilities that don't have an LA also, you know. Thus, your final point "From 4-7 we can see that warriors, on the other hand, can be of nonstandard races, since racial HD will also provice the elements of warriors' power" is disproven by your own arguement. Here- I am not entirely sure you understand your own argument...Most powerful non-standard races have LA. LA is even worse for tanks than spellcasters. "From 1 and 2 we can see that spellcasters essentially must be of the standard races. This means they will almost never have special abilities not given by their spells." Really- you mean darkvision isn't a "special ability"? There are lots of special abilities in races that don't have racial HD. And, what's a "standard race" and what other race do you want to play so badly? If you want to, and think it is cool- then do it. Even if it means a small decrease in power... we call that "roleplaying". Remember- the Spellcaster at high level is SO much more powerful than the Warrior type that the Spellcaster can afford to give up a little of it. That's the point you are missing. :nonono:
ancalimohtar 01-29-05, 09:07 PM	I mentioned in a post above, in response to some other guy, the Half-Ogre. It takes +2LA, but gives a load of stuff, most notably the Large size and +6 STR. What kind of tank wouldn't want that, even for LA? And, what's a "standard race"One of the races in the PHB, or one of their subraces from supplemental sourcebooks. and what other race do you want to play so badly? If you want to, and think it is cool- then do it. Even if it means a small decrease in power... we call that "roleplaying".Oh really? Hey, I'd like to play an illithid because it would be sweet. Except... I'll have level 3 spells at ECL 18. Hmmm, bad. "Small" decrease in power, indeed. Remember- the Spellcaster at high level is SO much more powerful than the Warrior type that the Spellcaster can afford to give up a little of it.Except I'm not comparing my spellcaster to your warrior. I'm comparing my spellcaster to what my spellcaster could have been if he had been human with full progression. That's the point you are missing. You said it, brother.
0gre 01-29-05, 10:47 PM	Well at least my post was blatant stupidity. You actually seem to think you're arguing your points, when everyone on here has made reasonable counter-arguments and discredited your posts with your own ramblings. It just seems that one of these type of threads gets started every so often and always ends in a flamefest. Why go against fate? It could also be that I'm bored and its so funny watching you type a 4 hour long post in an attempt to prove that us masses are all wrong, and you're the one who's right.
Skulan 01-29-05, 10:54 PM	Ow. DBZ flashbacks. All right. Good luck with this one. Once we get to giant Saiyan monologues, I hit my limit. A final plea, though: just a game, folks, just a game. There's little to be gained from venting anger at total strangers in an anonymous forum. Save that rage for the table, when the undead swarm in. No dispute was ever sufficiently resolved by tossing quotes back and forth until one side or the other quits in disgust. Well, maybe debate team. -Skulan
Neeek 01-29-05, 10:55 PM	Wrong. Now I know you can't possibly be saying that this is ALWAYS true, so I'll assume you mean generally. Now, have you ever browsed through this board? Look at the races taken for the various incarnations of the Hulking Hurler. How about the simple Half-Ogre? LA+2. Large size, +6 STR, +2 CON -2 DEX/INT/CHA, +4 nat armor. Who wouldn't sacrifice 2 ECLs for that? Anyone who doesn't want to suck at high level, I'd imagine. Since the only way you are ever going to be competetive is having someone cast polymorph on you anyway, causing you to lose those racial abilities. So? That's still an improvement, right? Nobody's comparing across the two spectrums here, like I said. Don't let your disdain for the warrior classes cloud your reasoning. Oh? Let's see. You said this: That's all fine and dandy, but don't you think that's restrictive? It's about ten times harder to optimize a full-caster than a meleer, but maybe that's just because the resulting caster is more powerful than the meleer. Except that's not necessarily true. Against equal foes, a frenzied 'zerker is no less effective than an incantatrix. So clearly, you were comparing their power levels. Except a lot of the classes with full caster progression on the right side of the chart ALSO suck. Except that's not exactly true, is it? Any class with a useful ability and full caster progression is going to almost certainly be better than just going up levels as a Wizard, a Cleric or a Sorcerer. You lose 1 feat every 5 levels as a Wizard, turning attempts as a Cleric, and *nothing* as a Sorcerer. Not a huge loss for any of them. Druids have to maintain Wildshape levels even above their caster levels, so they've got like 3 options total, but they are the only ones.
Blakk_Magemaster 01-29-05, 10:59 PM	Well, if you people would actually sit down and read his OP without jumping to conclusions half way through then you would know what he was talking about and not look like such an idiot. I don't know how many times he has to say that he is not comparing spellcasters to warriors. That has nothing to do with the topic. He's talking about the comparitive options of multiclassing. If you don't understand this or whatever, then don't post anything.
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 11:11 PM	Ancalimohtar, I got your back. When applying LA bearing races and PrCs pure spellcasters have a harder time keeping up their spellcasting strength than does the fighter have in keeping up their combat strength. This is a fault of game design. I do not know if the designers did this as a balancing factor for the greater power spellcasters have over the other weapon fighting classes over 20 levels or not. Regradless, when considering pure spellcasters types there is little to no advantage to their spellcasting ability in taking an LA bearing race or a PrC that only grants partial or less spellcasting. By way of analogy the pure warrior types that select an appropriate LA bearing race or PrC that grants a lesser BAB/HD is not as substantially weakened in fighting power as the analogus spellcaster is in spellpower. As mentioned before this is due to the fact that spellcasting strength grows exponentially with each spellcaster level and fighting strength grows linearly with each warrior level. I don’t see how you could change this without creating a new system. D&D 4E anyone? Necro
RadicalTaoist 01-29-05, 11:15 PM	You guys didn't get the hint the last time? http://img188.exs.cx/img188/1038/seriousbidness3lk.jpg
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 11:17 PM	RadicalTaoist, I hope you know I am saving those pics for later use, seriously. :rofl: Necro
Lamoni 01-29-05, 11:38 PM	It seems like there was a lot of poor reading on both sides. One side seems to not yet figure out that the premise wasn't based on the balance of spellcasters vs warriors. It did not say that spellcasters were weak. It did not say that warriors were more powerful. What it did say is that warriors get more options... not options in combat, but options in class customization. When D&D is all about options not restrictions it seems like a poor design when spellcasters are restricted like they are. The other side (original poster) seems not to see that responses can sometimes bring out points that weren't in the original premise that can still be valid. The greater power and innate flexibility with full spellcasters may be the reason why they are restricted from many multiclassing and prestige class options. They weren't arguing against your premise so much as offering an explanation as to WHY that might be the case. For what it is worth, I'd still like to see the warrior vs spellcaster duel. The problem I see is this. Set them 100' apart to start... spellcaster wins (unless warrior is a Paladin with a mount's speed of at least 50'). Set them in melee range, warrior wins. Have the rogueish warrior hiding and get a surprise round, spellcaster loses. I have never seen the wide spread in power that others always comment on and usually it is because they base the superiority on meeting on an open field with time to get off a spell before the warrior can close. Or they are given time to prep. I'll grant one thing, a spellcaster with no equipment is usually better than a warrior with no equipment. Add in the equipment and they look fairly equal to me.
necrosnoop110 01-29-05, 11:48 PM	Set them in melee range, warrior wins This is wrong for higher levels. If the warrior can bring weapons and armor armed, worn, and ready then why is not fair for the Wizard to have his spells researched, prepared, and ready. I do not even mean a few rounds of traditional buffing spells I'm talking about long lasting if not permanent spells like Clone spell, Contingency spell, Permanent spells, Hide Life spell, Wish, Moment of Prescience, etc. With spells like these even if the fighter gets the wizard on the jump it's not over. Necro
DungeonMaster 01-29-05, 11:56 PM	For what it is worth, I'd still like to see the warrior vs spellcaster duel. The problem I see is this. Set them 100' apart to start... spellcaster wins (unless warrior is a Paladin with a mount's speed of at least 50'). Assuming only a plain Oathbow archer with +5 arrows he will deal an average ~ 125 damage in one round with 5 attacks at rapid shot (2d8 +16 = 25 per hit) assuming no critical hits at 1500 feet without blinking. Even one critical (a fairly safe bet there's going to be one with 5 attacks) and you're at 175 average damage. That's not even starting to stack stuff, pray you're not within 30 feet. I'll grant one thing, a spellcaster with no equipment is usually better than a warrior with no equipment. Add in the equipment and they look fairly equal to me. For sure. But a spellcaster without gear vs. a warrior with gear and that's one dead spellcaster. In many ways I want warriors to be less gear dependent in the next edition. I've played 3rd edition (core rules, nothing extra) for many years now and I've never once heard anyone complain about high level warriors in my campaigns. They work as a class.
Lamoni 01-30-05, 12:53 AM	I figured that only the last paragraph of my post would be responded to. I don't mind, just thought I'd respond. When I was wrote that the warrior would win or the spellcaster would win, I wasn't trying to say that it was entirely one sided. I am glad that two counterexamples were brought up though. An archer warrior type can do massive amounts of damage in one round that should kill most spellcasters... of course then you could also bring up simple spells such as wind wall that would render the archer's arrows completely ineffective. Of course the spellcaster could have permanent spells prepared. And in the event that the spellcaster knows what he'll be fighting and can have the right spells prepared the spellcaster should win regardless of the range... but that doesn't mean the warrior can't have anything up his sleeve. With their equipment they can have any number of options. I think the point was made quite well though... there is no clear winner. The battle can be fought in too many different ways with too many things affecting the outcome. Design a spellcaster with a set plan... I'll design a warrior that can beat it... you can modify your plan to beat my warrior... I can use a different warrior to beat that, etc.
necrosnoop110 01-30-05, 12:58 AM	I think the point was made quite well though... there is no clear winner. The battle can be fought in too many different ways with too many things affecting the outcome. Design a spellcaster with a set plan... I'll design a warrior that can beat it... you can modify your plan to beat my warrior... I can use a different warrior to beat that, etc. Unless you catch a Wizard taking a crap he'll house a warrior any time, boo-ya! :ayyyy!: :dancin: :ayyyy!:
ancalimohtar 01-30-05, 01:33 AM	Well, necrosnoop110, you have surpassed the exceedingly... low expectations I had of you, and have proved your competence to me once more (though just barely). It's good we're on the same page. I don’t see how you could change this without creating a new system. D&D 4E anyone?Exactly. Like the title of the thread says, it's an inherent problem in the structure of the 3.0/3.5 rules system. Also, Lamoni, you're exactly right. Except I did know what they were saying, but decided I would rather they understand what my point was than go on to speculate as to "WHY that [the flawedness] might be the case." P.S. So, uh, has anyone here never seen those pictures before? They infest the internet, and so kind of lose their novelty after the 9999th time you see them.
0gre 01-30-05, 02:55 AM	Alright, as hard a temptation as it is not to troll, I have something I'd like to add to the mix. Psionics... With all this talk about versatility and choices amongst PrCs, how do you feel the psionic classes and PrCs fit into this whole mix? They seem to have it worse than either the wizard or caster type, when it comes down to PrC choices. Of course their strength comes from their powers just like all the other caster types, but when it comes to PrCs they are the ones that get the shaft deeper and harder than anyone, just from the sheer lack of the number of Psionic PrCs out there. I really don't care to bring the Mind's Eye material into this equation, just printed material.
WizO_Autumn 01-30-05, 11:29 AM	Ok- I just spent quite a while cleaning this thread up. There was a lot that violated the code of conduct here and any more will get the thread shut down. General disagreement and discussion is fine, and I've left that because this issue is a valid point. But insulting each other and posting comments and pictures that are designed to bait and troll are not ok. Play nicely.