| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| jephlewis09-06-07, 04:47 AM | Hello board and fellow gamers, I recently purchased tome of battle, and i'm very impressed with it. According to some of the things i've read on the wizards/gleemax boards, tome of battle and star wars saga edition are both 'previews' of fourth edition. I sincerely hope so! FWIW, i'm in between 'hallelujah' and 'wait and see' on the whole 4E thing. Anyway, as I was going through tome of battle, I thought that it would be great if the core classes in the PHB had their own 'per encounter' abilities. I'm not real good with house-ruling something this major. Has anyone made some house rules for 'per encounter' abilities with the core classes and their class features in the PHB? Could anyone suggest how best to search for these house rules? I've skimmed the unearthed arcana and house rule thread, and didn't find anything. Have I overlooked them? Are they in another topic/thread? Are they on someone's web page? Any assistance would be appreciated, and thank you in advance. jephlewis |
| EvilVegan09-07-07, 11:03 AM | Hello board and fellow gamers, I recently purchased tome of battle, and i'm very impressed with it. According to some of the things i've read on the wizards/gleemax boards, tome of battle and star wars saga edition are both 'previews' of fourth edition. I sincerely hope so! FWIW, i'm in between 'hallelujah' and 'wait and see' on the whole 4E thing. Anyway, as I was going through tome of battle, I thought that it would be great if the core classes in the PHB had their own 'per encounter' abilities. I'm not real good with house-ruling something this major. Has anyone made some house rules for 'per encounter' abilities with the core classes and their class features in the PHB? Could anyone suggest how best to search for these house rules? I've skimmed the unearthed arcana and house rule thread, and didn't find anything. Have I overlooked them? Are they in another topic/thread? Are they on someone's web page? Any assistance would be appreciated, and thank you in advance. jephlewis Well, there are some variants that make certain classes "per encounter" classes. There's the HP threshold rage barbarian variant in PHBII, there are some spell-recharge abilities for casters in UA (which are a mechanical monstrosity, but meh), and I think a few other variants in various places. But there hasn't been a real "ToB" conversion for PHB. And with 4e on the horizon I don't think it's worth it. I was previously working on a Saga conversion but abandoned that a few weeks ago with the announcement. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-07-07, 11:59 AM | According to some of the things i've read on the wizards/gleemax boards, tome of battle and star wars saga edition are both 'previews' of fourth edition. Oh my god!! ToB was broken in 3.5, and now they're incorporating it into core? How many seriously bad ideas do they have to come up with? |
| jephlewis09-07-07, 01:38 PM | Well, there are some variants that make certain classes "per encounter" classes. There's the HP threshold rage barbarian variant in PHBII, there are some spell-recharge abilities for casters in UA (which are a mechanical monstrosity, but meh), and I think a few other variants in various places. But there hasn't been a real "ToB" conversion for PHB. And with 4e on the horizon I don't think it's worth it. I was previously working on a Saga conversion but abandoned that a few weeks ago with the announcement. thank you for your reply; As for 'not being worth it' because we're so close to fourth edition, I tend to agree. A friend and I are both more excited than not when it comes to the new release. Neither of us have the experience with 3.x to start seriously modifying the ruleset in any balanced way, so I guess we'll just have to wait and make do with my half a sheet of house rules. recharging spells in UA: UGH! you're right! I don't want to go that way; Perhaps i'll look more into some type of character level/spell level per encounter limit. jephlewis |
| jephlewis09-07-07, 01:59 PM | Oh my god!! ToB was broken in 3.5, and now they're incorporating it into core? How many seriously bad ideas do they have to come up with? You know, my opinion on tome of battle was similar before I bought it and read it a little more. One of the reasons I waited so long before I bought it was of the mixed reviews. Of the people who didn't give it a 4 or 5, two issues were often brought up; recordkeeping and power creep for melee/martial classes. I will agree that more paperwork is going to have to be done. As for the power creep, I've noticed that in many of the character optimization threads the fighter is often viewed as underpowered compared to clerics, druids, and wizards at levels 5-on up. I strongly suspect that the character optimization board people have at least a slightly better grasp of the numbers, or 'guts' of the ruleset compared to myself, so I tend to trust their judgement on matters of whether or not the fighter may need something to make him a little more effective at higher levels. Also, there is the enjoyment factor. Will tome of battle make the game more fun for those who don't play spellcasters, and instead want to play front line warriors? After going through the book, I tend to say yes; The recordkeeping is what may tend to lower the fun factor somewhat. What is it that you view as broken in tome of battle? is it too many maneuvers and/or stances at such a low level? Is it the actual effects of some of them? Is it that the three core classes in tome of battle are stronger than the fighter, barbarian, and ranger in the PHB? I ask because when I first started flipping through it, I thought 'nobody will use the three fighter types in the PHB if they can use these guys'. I have not yet allowed the classes in tome of battle, but what I am allowing is the ability to select single maneuvers and stances as per the two feats listed in tome of battle. So now, my friend's ninja can do 'ninja things' by getting some shadow maneuvers. After seeing how that works out, I may allow the classes themselves. jephlewis |
| EvilVegan09-07-07, 03:07 PM | They're internally balanced and balanced against psion/wizard/cleric/sorcerer and maybe druid. There is a good chance they can be out-damaged by a comparable barbarian and a barbarian is easier to keep track of. Not as fun to play, but easier to keep track of. |
| Corvus_Obscurus09-07-07, 04:25 PM | Well, the simplest variant is to bring the PHB classes on the same level as ToB. The general modifications I use are: -All non-spellcasting classes (rangers and paladins lose spellcasting) gain Maneuvers and Stances as a Warblade and access to three thematically fitting disciplines -Bards may chose whether to keep spellcasting or use maneuvers. So far it works out pretty good. |
| IRememberCecil09-07-07, 04:41 PM | ToB was broken in 3.5 No. |
| Novem09-07-07, 04:54 PM | Oh my god!! ToB was broken in 3.5, and now they're incorporating it into core? How many seriously bad ideas do they have to come up with? Perhaps you would like to support your statement, explain your opinions, or the like? ToB has been, like Psionics, Mathematically Proven to be balanced- Barbarians and Fighters can both out damage them if they want to. I mean no offense if you did not mean to come across this way, but my initial reaction to your post was to assume you are trolling. On topic, I think incorporating ToB is a great idea. Currently, I'm making a variant of the Fighter with a great deal in common with ToB, (because I'm too cheap to buy it myself, but I've heard the basic premise of it). It is meant to be realistic and incorporate my useful knowledge of the Martial Arts. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-07-07, 06:31 PM | Oh my god!! ToB was broken in 3.5, and now they're incorporating it into core? How many seriously bad ideas do they have to come up with? There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin... Well, first of all, ToB is completely balanced in 3.5. It's been mathematically proven, and anybody who has actually played a ToB character instead of just looking at it knows that. People get a stupid knee-jerk reaction over it for the same reason they got one over the Monk and the Duskblade. They look overpowered on paper, but in reality, they're not that big a deal. Second of all, even if it WERE overpowered, putting it in the core would mean that... wait for it... now it's balanced with core. :P Third of all, you probably haven't noticed because I doubt you've ever played one, but ToB characters are widely considered much more dynamic, versatile, and interesting to play in combat, a.k.a. they're more fun and exciting. Making D&D more fun is EXACTLY the point of having a new edition. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-08-07, 06:56 AM | These are my three reasons for not liking ToB 1) It's not D&D I would be fine with ToB if the system was Inuyasha D20, but the system is D&D and ToB doesn't stay true to the original idea. It is themed wrong for D&D and makes no sense at all (If I swing my sword like this, I get a magical effect! I am now a blade mage...) 2) It's overpowered One of my first characters was a dwarven fighter/defender that was entirely based on not getting hit. His damage output was ok, but nothing could hit him and even if they did, he had close to 200 HP. Notice that there is something seriously wrong with the system when some blade mage out of ToB can walk up to him and make a touch attack (with a melee weapon, of all things) which will reliably pierce through all of that armor. This is just the start, of course. I have very specific problems with two of the ToB classes. Swordsage: Gets to add WIS to AC and gets to wear light armor. I think I have seen one PrC that did something like that. This along with way too many skill points, two good saves, evasion, and that stupid discipline focus thing. Warblade: I have the biggest problem with this one. It gets D12 HD, full access to the weapon focus tree, and the ability to switch weapon focus by practicing with a different weapon for one hour. 3) It's overrated I cannot count the number of times I have seen those threads that read OMG...fighter is teh suxx0r!! Usually it is accompanied by a description of how blade mages make fighters obsolete or how they balance melee with spellcasters, both of which are full of hot air. Melee was fine in core, it was fine in the complete series, and it is fine without ToB. I can find plenty of capable melee builds that use more than two levels of fighter and can take control of the field without any maneuvers or stances. |
| EvilVegan09-08-07, 09:24 AM | These are my three reasons for not liking ToB 1) It's not D&D I would be fine with ToB if the system was Inuyasha D20, but the system is D&D and ToB doesn't stay true to the original idea. It is themed wrong for D&D and makes no sense at all (If I swing my sword like this, I get a magical effect! I am now a blade mage...) 2) It's overpowered One of my first characters was a dwarven fighter/defender that was entirely based on not getting hit. His damage output was ok, but nothing could hit him and even if they did, he had close to 200 HP. Notice that there is something seriously wrong with the system when some blade mage out of ToB can walk up to him and make a touch attack (with a melee weapon, of all things) which will reliably pierce through all of that armor. This is just the start, of course. I have very specific problems with two of the ToB classes. Swordsage: Gets to add WIS to AC and gets to wear light armor. I think I have seen one PrC that did something like that. This along with way too many skill points, two good saves, evasion, and that stupid discipline focus thing. Warblade: I have the biggest problem with this one. It gets D12 HD, full access to the weapon focus tree, and the ability to switch weapon focus by practicing with a different weapon for one hour. 3) It's overrated I cannot count the number of times I have seen those threads that read OMG...fighter is teh suxx0r!! Usually it is accompanied by a description of how blade mages make fighters obsolete or how they balance melee with spellcasters, both of which are full of hot air. Melee was fine in core, it was fine in the complete series, and it is fine without ToB. I can find plenty of capable melee builds that use more than two levels of fighter and can take control of the field without any maneuvers or stances.It is obvious you actually don't know what you're talking about. Yes a warrior with a d12 hit die and the ability to use multiple weapons is CRAZY! You're so correct I'm going to explode! WHAT?! A medium BAB spellcaster that can deal damage while wearing armor and has a lot of skill points. Well shoot me in the face I can't handle the thoughts! I'll go play a druid instead. OH WAIT NOES! THERE IS NO WHERE TO RUN!! OMG A HOLY WARRIOR THAT CAN MODERATELY HEAL AND TANK!? No thanks, that doesn't belong in D&D. I'll be playing my paladin, Roland. I remember this one time in 1st edition I had a 14th level guy with 100 hit points and a 0AC and he could hit every so often and deal a d8+2 damage. HE WAS THE R0XX0RZ AND NOTHING SHOULD EVER CHANGE! Hand me my bec de corbin and a box of Depends. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-08-07, 04:21 PM | These are my three reasons for not liking ToBOh, this is gonna be good... 1) It's not D&D I would be fine with ToB if the system was Inuyasha D20, but the system is D&D and ToB doesn't stay true to the original idea. It is themed wrong for D&D and makes no sense at all (If I swing my sword like this, I get a magical effect! I am now a blade mage...)Nothing in ToB is out of theme for D&D, and the simple fact that you think it is proves you've never actually taken any significant amount of time with the book. The Crusader has the exact same flavor as a Paladin, the Warblade has the exact same flavor as a Fighter, and the Swordsage's flavor is pretty much that of the Monk. I can go further in depth with the disciplines, if you'd like: Desert Wind: Has absolutely zero difference from any gish that can cast fire spells. Devoted Spirit: Exactly what you should expect from a Clreic or Paladin. Diamond Mind: Basically Swashbuckler flavor, perhaps Monk. Iron Heart: Your generic Fighter. Setting Sun: Monk written all over it. Shadow Hand: Ever seen the Shadowdancer class in the DMG? Stone Dragon: Every Dwarf ever? Tiger Claw: Barbarian plain and simple. White Raven: Same flavor as Bard or Marshal, perhaps Paladin. Really, only 2 of the 9 disciplines are supernatural in any way (both of which have a flavor that can be reproduced exactly with a core-only build), and they're exclusive to the Swordsage, who has 4 other mundane disciplines to pick from. Unless you think Paladins, Clerics, Bard, Marshals, Barbarians, Fighters, Swashbucklers, and Monks don't belong in D&D, then your argument is irreparably flawed on multiple levels. 2) It's overpowered One of my first characters was a dwarven fighter/defender that was entirely based on not getting hit. His damage output was ok, but nothing could hit him and even if they did, he had close to 200 HP. Notice that there is something seriously wrong with the system when some blade mage out of ToB can walk up to him and make a touch attack (with a melee weapon, of all things) which will reliably pierce through all of that armor. This is just the start, of course. I have very specific problems with two of the ToB classes.Oh, of course, so because now your favorite character isn't as invincible as you thought, the book must obviously be overpowered. Nevermind that this touch attack will be a standard action, preventing the martial adept from taking a full attack. Nevermind that it can't ever be used twice two turns in a row. Nevermind that Dwarven Defender is an underpowered Prestige Class to begin with and Fighter is an underpowered base class. Swordsage: Gets to add WIS to AC and gets to wear light armor. I think I have seen one PrC that did something like that. This along with way too many skill points, two good saves, evasion, and that stupid discipline focus thing.Wow, first of all, yeah, it gets WIS to AC, but so does Monk. Sure, monk doesn't get to wear light armor, but Swordsage doesn't get free AC bonus that stays even while he's subject to a Touch attack. Monk also, by the way, gets ALL good saves, evasion, and almost as many skill points. Of course, if you want to look at Ranger, it too gets 2 good saves, the same number of skill points, and evasion. I'm not even gonna get into Discipline Focus. I mean, heaven forbid a class have some kind of class feature that's marginally useful... Warblade: I have the biggest problem with this one. It gets D12 HD, full access to the weapon focus tree, and the ability to switch weapon focus by practicing with a different weapon for one hour.Barbarians and Knights also have a D12 HD, and the Weapon Focus feat free is so drastically underpowered that most Fighters don't take it. Here would probably be the place to point out that it's been shown mathematically that Barbarians are just as if not more powerful than Warblades. I find it funny that in this section about ToB being opverpowered, you've decided to point out Swordsage and Warblade when common consensus is that the Crusader is actually the most powerful martial adept. I think that goes a long way towards showing how well you actually understand the book... 3) It's overratedNot even a valid reason for not liking something to begin with, but I'll bite... I cannot count the number of times I have seen those threads that read OMG...fighter is teh suxx0r!!The Fighter IS "teh suxx0r!!" Usually it is accompanied by a description of how blade mages make fighters obsolete or how they balance melee with spellcasters, both of which are full of hot air.I agree on both counts: 1) ToB did not make Fighters obsolete. Fighters have been obsolete for a long time before ToB came out. 2) ToB doesn't balance melee with spellcasters. Casters are still vastly superior. Melee was fine in core, it was fine in the complete series, and it is fine without ToB.If you're saying that ToB doesn't change the power level of the game, you are correct. However, ToB does have qualities that make its existence worthwhile, which you would know if you had bothered to sit down and spend some time actually looking at the book, possibly making a character for yourself. The main redeeming factor is that ToB characters tend to be a lot more versatile in combat, having more options to pick from so that battles aren't just "I charge!" or "I Full Attack!" In other words, it makes playing melee characters more fun and gives them more options, which is exactly what you should hope for expect from a supplement designed for melee combatants. I can find plenty of capable melee builds that use more than two levels of fighter and can take control of the field without any maneuvers or stances.Of course you can, but this fails to prove any kind of point except mine that ToB isn't overpowered. |
| jephlewis09-08-07, 09:41 PM | They're internally balanced and balanced against psion/wizard/cleric/sorcerer and maybe druid. There is a good chance they can be out-damaged by a comparable barbarian and a barbarian is easier to keep track of. Not as fun to play, but easier to keep track of. While I haven't statted up any of the classes you mentioned to level 20 and compared them to the tome of battle classes [and each other], I tend to agree with you on balance issues, EXCEPT the druid...I just recently learned of 'C.o.D.zilla', lol. But seriously, I have looked at the martial abilities, and they don't seem ridiculously powerful compared to some of the magic that the cleric and the wizard have available, so long as we're talking same levels for spellcasters and tome of battle classes. I've got the expanded psionics handbook, but haven't really had time to go through it; The three core books are what i've been focusing on for the last few months. I have read multiple threads on these boards, and it seems that we as a community are not entirely of one opinion on the whole psionics is balanced/not balanced issue. For me, the tiebreaker ends up being the character optimization folks, the reviews of the book itself, the fact that it is revised/expanded, and a certain other RPG board/website. At some point, I WILL read the darn thing and make up my mind. Well, the simplest variant is to bring the PHB classes on the same level as ToB. The general modifications I use are: -All non-spellcasting classes (rangers and paladins lose spellcasting) gain Maneuvers and Stances as a Warblade and access to three thematically fitting disciplines -Bards may chose whether to keep spellcasting or use maneuvers. So far it works out pretty good. You know, that doesn't sound bad at all! And it doesn't require a major overhaul. I may end up doing this. Thanks for the assistance! There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to begin... Well, first of all, ToB is completely balanced in 3.5. It's been mathematically proven, and anybody who has actually played a ToB character instead of just looking at it knows that. People get a stupid knee-jerk reaction over it for the same reason they got one over the Monk and the Duskblade. They look overpowered on paper, but in reality, they're not that big a deal. Second of all, even if it WERE overpowered, putting it in the core would mean that... wait for it... now it's balanced with core. :P Third of all, you probably haven't noticed because I doubt you've ever played one, but ToB characters are widely considered much more dynamic, versatile, and interesting to play in combat, a.k.a. they're more fun and exciting. Making D&D more fun is EXACTLY the point of having a new edition. 1. I was guilty of the 'knee jerk' reaction, for the exact reason you posted; They LOOKED powerful on paper. Then I read a little more , and I changed my mind; I think ultimately, it was the 'per encounter' aspect that lead me to think it was more balanced than I originally thought, as well as asking myself 'what level spell could do this much damage or produce a similar effect?'. From the maneuvers and stances that I have so far looked at, they seem to be on par with 1st-4th level arcane spells, but I really need to read tome of battle alongside the PHB spell section. 2. I completely and totally agree with the statements I underlined in your post. These are my three reasons for not liking ToB 1) It's not D&D I would be fine with ToB if the system was Inuyasha D20, but the system is D&D and ToB doesn't stay true to the original idea. It is themed wrong for D&D and makes no sense at all (If I swing my sword like this, I get a magical effect! I am now a blade mage...) I can agree that it's not how D&D has been, but it's a game that has evolved and changed over time. There are people who state that 3.x isn't D&D, and I think they are sincere in their statement; It's not what THEY envision D&D to be, it's further from 'what they expect/what they're used to'. Heck, I know one guy who never got into 2nd Ed AD&D because 'it's not the same'. Now he doesn't play at all which is truly 'teh suxx0rs'! I think you and I both play the same game, but with different bells and whistles, and different expectations. Diversity, in this particular instance, is good. When fourth edition comes out, AND if 'tome of battle stuff' is in core, AND you examine it and don't like it, I hope that other people who agree with you get together and make a workable set of houserules that is satisfactory to you. Heck, I hope that the 4E unearthed arcana lists a variant ruleset to remove 'tome of battle stuff', so it can be 'core' or 'canon', just so you can play the same ruleset as me and we can all be content! [B]2) It's overpowered One of my first characters was a dwarven fighter/defender that was entirely based on not getting hit. His damage output was ok, but nothing could hit him and even if they did, he had close to 200 HP. Notice that there is something seriously wrong with the system when some blade mage out of ToB can walk up to him and make a touch attack (with a melee weapon, of all things) which will reliably pierce through all of that armor. This is just the start, of course. I have very specific problems with two of the ToB classes. I could be wrong, but doesn't spectral hand+4th level or lower spell [for example, shocking grasp] do the same thing as 'blade mage'? If I am reading you right, your character was focused on 'not getting hit', and 'blade mage' is somewhat an achille's heel for this type of build? [I]Swordsage: Gets to add WIS to AC and gets to wear light armor. I think I have seen one PrC that did something like that. This along with way too many skill points, two good saves, evasion, and that stupid discipline focus thing. Warblade: I have the biggest problem with this one. It gets D12 HD, full access to the weapon focus tree, and the ability to switch weapon focus by practicing with a different weapon for one hour. swordsage: slower BaB progression, no ranger class abilities including spellcasting. The ranger has two good saves; Is the ranger unbalanced as well? warblade: a LOT less class abilities compared to barbarian. Looking at them, i'd say the warblade is 'a different kind of barbarian', and the swordsage is 'a different kind of ranger'. I guess we just have to disagree on these two classes. The good news is, you don't seem to think the crusader is unbalanced, right? 3) It's overrated I cannot count the number of times I have seen those threads that read OMG...fighter is teh suxx0r!! Usually it is accompanied by a description of how blade mages make fighters obsolete or how they balance melee with spellcasters, both of which are full of hot air. Melee was fine in core, it was fine in the complete series, and it is fine without ToB. I can find plenty of capable melee builds that use more than two levels of fighter and can take control of the field without any maneuvers or stances. Let's hope that your characters don't run into a 'blade mage' using a touch attack maneuver or a wizard using spectral hand+a fourth level or lower spell. I don't think 'teh fighter is the suxx0r', but I DO think that other classes MAY have an advantage over him after 5th level. Do you agree or disagree with that? jephlewis |
| zorgling2509-08-07, 11:15 PM | 1) It's not D&D I would be fine with ToB if the system was Inuyasha D20, but the system is D&D and ToB doesn't stay true to the original idea. It is themed wrong for D&D and makes no sense at all (If I swing my sword like this, I get a magical effect! I am now a blade mage...) You really have not read ToB have you? Only 2, maybe 3 of the disciplines have effects that are magical in some way. Granted, one of those happens to be the first one alphabetically, so it would make sense if someone stopped reading there. :rolleyes: 2) It's overpowered One of my first characters was a dwarven fighter/defender that was entirely based on not getting hit. His damage output was ok, but nothing could hit him and even if they did, he had close to 200 HP. Notice that there is something seriously wrong with the system when some blade mage out of ToB can walk up to him and make a touch attack (with a melee weapon, of all things) which will reliably pierce through all of that armor. This is just the start, of course. I have very specific problems with two of the ToB classes. Boo-hoo. Characters have been making touch attacks with weapons since Wraithstrike and Find the Gap. There's nothing wrong with a character beating one of the weakest base classes paired with one of the weakest prestige classes. Swordsage: Gets to add WIS to AC and gets to wear light armor. I think I have seen one PrC that did something like that. This along with way too many skill points, two good saves, evasion, and that stupid discipline focus thing. So it has an ability that you've never seen before, and its unbalanced? I'd like to point out that the Ranger has the same number of skill points and HD, 2 good saves, evasion, spellcasting, and better BAB. Warblade: I have the biggest problem with this one. It gets D12 HD, full access to the weapon focus tree, and the ability to switch weapon focus by practicing with a different weapon for one hour. People have already filled you in on the errors in this argument (mainly the Barbarian and Knight as counter-examples). I'll also point out that the Warblade doesn't have full access to the Weapon Focus tree, since it doesn't get the prereqs for Weapon Supremacy before it gets its last feat. 3) It's overrated I cannot count the number of times I have seen those threads that read OMG...fighter is teh suxx0r!! Usually it is accompanied by a description of how blade mages make fighters obsolete or how they balance melee with spellcasters, both of which are full of hot air. Melee was fine in core, it was fine in the complete series, and it is fine without ToB. I can find plenty of capable melee builds that use more than two levels of fighter and can take control of the field without any maneuvers or stances. Thats a fallacious argument. The fact that good Fighter builds exist does not prove that the Fighter is balanced. In fact, you'll find many MORE capable caster builds than melee builds. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 09:52 AM | While I haven't statted up any of the classes you mentioned to level 20 and compared them to the tome of battle classes [and each other], I tend to agree with you on balance issues, EXCEPT the druid...I just recently learned of 'C.o.D.zilla', lol. But seriously, I have looked at the martial abilities, and they don't seem ridiculously powerful compared to some of the magic that the cleric and the wizard have available, so long as we're talking same levels for spellcasters and tome of battle classes. I've got the expanded psionics handbook, but haven't really had time to go through it; The three core books are what i've been focusing on for the last few months. I have read multiple threads on these boards, and it seems that we as a community are not entirely of one opinion on the whole psionics is balanced/not balanced issue. For me, the tiebreaker ends up being the character optimization folks, the reviews of the book itself, the fact that it is revised/expanded, and a certain other RPG board/website. At some point, I WILL read the darn thing and make up my mind. Well, the thing about CoDzilla is that it isn't as powerful as it is drummed up to be. Sure, the druid can wild shape into a T-rex, but that doesn't mean the T-rex is particularly menacing compared to other melee-based PCs. This assumes, of course, that the druid knows what a T-rex is. I could be wrong, but doesn't spectral hand+4th level or lower spell [for example, shocking grasp] do the same thing as 'blade mage'? If I am reading you right, your character was focused on 'not getting hit', and 'blade mage' is somewhat an achille's heel for this type of build? I can't find what you are talking about? What book is it in? The guy was supposed to stand between the monsters and the squishy people in the back. He was also one of my first characters and was created before ToB. I'd say he did the his job well based on how the campaign went. What I find irritating is the ability for blade mages to make those touch attacks with impunity. A caster eventually runs out of batteries (and must have the right spell prepared) and it's really risky for him to make touch attacks against a guy with an axe and armor spikes. The melee equivalent is a weapon of brilliant energy, but this is a pricey option and is still limited by the fact that it can be disarmed or dispelled. swordsage: slower BaB progression, no ranger class abilities including spellcasting. The ranger has two good saves; Is the ranger unbalanced as well? warblade: a LOT less class abilities compared to barbarian. Looking at them, i'd say the warblade is 'a different kind of barbarian', and the swordsage is 'a different kind of ranger'. I guess we just have to disagree on these two classes. The good news is, you don't seem to think the crusader is unbalanced, right? The ranger doesn't get his WIS as an AC bonus. The favored enemy ability is nice, but it is n't useful against anything besides your favored enemy. Ranger spellcasting is also a nice ability, but it's negligable and I almost never use it. The number of class abilities don't matter. It's the impact that those abilities have. There are plenty of classes out there with a lot of class abilities, but the class as a whole isn't all that great. What the warblade gets are those maneuvers and stances. I didn't post about the crusader because I haven't paid much attention to it. I am wary of the damage pool ability, though. Let's hope that your characters don't run into a 'blade mage' using a touch attack maneuver or a wizard using spectral hand+a fourth level or lower spell. I don't think 'teh fighter is the suxx0r', but I DO think that other classes MAY have an advantage over him after 5th level. Do you agree or disagree with that? At the risk of turning this into Yet Another Fighter Thread, here's my take on that. The fighter only looks underpowered on paper because a lot of folks (mostly the caster munchkins) don't pause to look at the options available to the fighter. They assume that any fighters they run into will always have poor will saves, won't have levels in any good PrC, that their Ub3r l33t casters will always have the right spells prepared for the encounter, and that the terrain will always be in their favor. Barring this, I have seen some great fighter builds put into practice (not just on paper) that are quite scary, to be honest. My favorite example of this is the mounted fighter. With a few levels in the cavalier PrC, the fighter can make every single charge more devastating than a single casting of disintegrate. Throw a level or two of Dragonrider on top of that and every single character on the field becomes a potential chew toy, including the almighty wizard. Therefore, I will say that a properly built fighter doesn't loose his effectiveness after 5th level, though the same can be said of most classes. Of course, there really isn't much point anyway in debating things like this because D&D is supposed to be played in a team, not as a dueling system. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 10:11 AM | You really have not read ToB have you? Only 2, maybe 3 of the disciplines have effects that are magical in some way. Granted, one of those happens to be the first one alphabetically, so it would make sense if someone stopped reading there. :rolleyes: A martial maneuver is a discrete extraordinary or supernatural effect that is temporarily expended after use. Actually, I have read ToB. In fact, I have played as a warblade once and I have run a game where someone played a swordsage. Both times, I regretted the outcome. Thats a fallacious argument. The fact that good Fighter builds exist does not prove that the Fighter is balanced. In fact, you'll find many MORE capable caster builds than melee builds. Many of these Ub3r l33t caster builds rely on very specific circumstances or just plain don't work under the rules. Assuming that we count up all of the viable caster builds and find that more exist than for melee, that doesn't prove that magic > melee. It just as easily proves that people just aren't paying as much attention to creating Ub3r l33t melee builds. |
| EvilVegan09-09-07, 10:52 AM | Well, the thing about CoDzilla is that it isn't as powerful as it is drummed up to be. Sure, the druid can wild shape into a T-rex, but that doesn't mean the T-rex is particularly menacing compared to other melee-based PCs. This assumes, of course, that the druid knows what a T-rex is. I can't find what you are talking about? What book is it in? The guy was supposed to stand between the monsters and the squishy people in the back. He was also one of my first characters and was created before ToB. I'd say he did the his job well based on how the campaign went. What I find irritating is the ability for blade mages to make those touch attacks with impunity. A caster eventually runs out of batteries (and must have the right spell prepared) and it's really risky for him to make touch attacks against a guy with an axe and armor spikes. The melee equivalent is a weapon of brilliant energy, but this is a pricey option and is still limited by the fact that it can be disarmed or dispelled. The ranger doesn't get his WIS as an AC bonus. The favored enemy ability is nice, but it is n't useful against anything besides your favored enemy. Ranger spellcasting is also a nice ability, but it's negligable and I almost never use it. The number of class abilities don't matter. It's the impact that those abilities have. There are plenty of classes out there with a lot of class abilities, but the class as a whole isn't all that great. What the warblade gets are those maneuvers and stances. I didn't post about the crusader because I haven't paid much attention to it. I am wary of the damage pool ability, though. At the risk of turning this into Yet Another Fighter Thread, here's my take on that. The fighter only looks underpowered on paper because a lot of folks (mostly the caster munchkins) don't pause to look at the options available to the fighter. They assume that any fighters they run into will always have poor will saves, won't have levels in any good PrC, that their Ub3r l33t casters will always have the right spells prepared for the encounter, and that the terrain will always be in their favor. Barring this, I have seen some great fighter builds put into practice (not just on paper) that are quite scary, to be honest. My favorite example of this is the mounted fighter. With a few levels in the cavalier PrC, the fighter can make every single charge more devastating than a single casting of disintegrate. Throw a level or two of Dragonrider on top of that and every single character on the field becomes a potential chew toy, including the almighty wizard. Therefore, I will say that a properly built fighter doesn't loose his effectiveness after 5th level, though the same can be said of most classes. Of course, there really isn't much point anyway in debating things like this because D&D is supposed to be played in a team, not as a dueling system. So basically you're a fan of rewarding players for blowing all of their spells and then resting 8 hours to recover between fights. That makes for great stories/games! Yes, a swordsage can explode into a fiery burst of 100 damage every other round all day. Guess what? That doesn't matter. It matters how much damage they can do per encounter because that's all that unbalances anything. If your DM throws 20 encounters at you in a day, that's not the fault of the design or the game, that's the DM being a douche. Martial adepts (and any fighter) out perform casters after the "4th combat in a day". On the opposite side of the coin, you see monsters with abilities that are usable 3/day. That seems like a good limit right? Well the party is probably going to meet/fight them exactly once, which effectively means that the monster has 3/encounter. The systems are already flawed. You're either in favor of a guy who can do special things all day or a guy who can do a few special things and then becomes a commoner with good equipment. And as shown, warblades don't out-damage any other melee combatants. If they aren't out damaging things, what exactly are you claiming is "overpowered"? They can move and attack in a different way than a barbarian moves and attacks? They can do things a fighter should be able to do, but can't because he was poorly designed to begin with? OH NO! Burn the book! |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 11:39 AM | So basically you're a fan of rewarding players for blowing all of their spells and then resting 8 hours to recover between fights. That makes for great stories/games! Did I say that? No. Martial adepts (and any fighter) out perform casters after the "4th combat in a day". And there lies the game balance. On the opposite side of the coin, you see monsters with abilities that are usable 3/day. That seems like a good limit right? Well the party is probably going to meet/fight them exactly once, which effectively means that the monster has 3/encounter. Those abilities are gone for the day when used. Maneuvers can be recovered indefinitely. And as shown, warblades don't out-damage any other melee combatants. The issue is not outdamaging the other melee combatants. The issue is all the other things the warblade gets. If they aren't out damaging things, what exactly are you claiming is "overpowered"? Let's start with the ability to recover maneuvers an infinite number of times per day, some of which make no logical sense. Then you could include the poorly built stance system (ie: pearl of black doubt). They can do things a fighter should be able to do What, pretend to be Inuyasha and try to pass it off as D&D? but can't because he was poorly designed to begin with? Reread the entry about mounted fighters. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-09-07, 01:02 PM | What, pretend to be Inuyasha and try to pass it off as D&D?Okay, hun, I already addressed this in my last post (as well as a few other things you've brought up since then). Are you going to respond to my post or pretend that it's not there because you can't argue against it? Because you can only bring up things that have already been answered for so long before people cry troll. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 01:07 PM | Okay, hun, I already addressed this in my last post (as well as a few other things you've brought up since then). Are you going to respond to my post or pretend that it's not there because you can't argue against it? Because you can only bring up things that have already been answered for so long before people cry troll. I say there, old chap, that was really uncalled for. Are you looking for civilized talk or flame war? |
| Ra-Tiel09-09-07, 01:13 PM | [...] And there lies the game balance. [...] Wrong. (The threat of) 4 encounters per day is a very flawed point of view. It basically forces the DM to put his foot in his mouth to prevent casters from nova-ing every single opponent in a citybased adventure into the netherplanes. Also, for most classes per day abilities just don't make sense. Yeah, of course, you can only become really angry once per day. :rolleyes: If you get what I mean. ;) If you remove the flawed assumption of 4 fights/encounters per day, and instead base everything on a "per encounter" scale you have real balance. [...] Reread the entry about mounted fighters. Which are completely and utterly pwned by any caster worth his salt that had prepared a simple 3rd level fly spell. Also, while that 20 level fighter with prestige classes left and right may be capable of contributing in a meaningful way to a CR 20 encounter, his 30HP/4HD warhorse is not. From what I heard (more accurately: read) from you, it seems that in your game casters are primarily played as the direct-damage artilleries. A caster's true power, however, lies with debuff and battlefield control. Why should I pack any direct damage spell, when I can just as well obliterate any opposition with carefully timed debuff/battlefield control/dot effects? If the exact modus operandi involves enervation (with a metamagic rod of maximize) followed by baleful polymorph, or the expensive combination of quickened cloudkill (via metamagic rod) and forcecage is irrelevant. A properly played and prepared caster should be able to handle almost any enemy without dealing a single point of HP damage. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-09-07, 01:23 PM | I say there, old chap, that was really uncalled for. Are you looking for civilized talk or flame war?I said nothing inflammatory. I simply suggested that if you're going to continue to try to use an argument that has already been completely invalidated, you should try to refute that argument that invalidated it first. Otherwise, it will appear to others as though you are simply ignoring certain things you can't argue against, which would make you a troll. I'm not saying you are a troll, and I am in fact trying to help you not be one, so please follow my suggestion and respond to everything, not just what you want to. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 01:55 PM | Wrong. (The threat of) 4 encounters per day is a very flawed point of view. It basically forces the DM to put his foot in his mouth to prevent casters from nova-ing every single opponent in a citybased adventure into the netherplanes. The PCs may not face four encounters every day since this number changes based on circumstance. Nevertheless, the DM is supposed to provide multiple encounters per day, which in turn prevents the casters from going nova. Which are completely and utterly pwned by any caster worth his salt that had prepared a simple 3rd level fly spell. Also, while that 20 level fighter with prestige classes left and right may be capable of participating in a meaningful way to a CR 20 encounter, his 30HP/4HD warhorse is not. You obviously didn't reread my post. A mounted fighter with levels in cavalier and dragonrider makes a great damage dealer that can very easily survive a combat. Not only does his charge inflict a lot of damage, his mount is more than capable of fighting as well. From what I heard (more accurately: read) from you, it seems that in your game casters are primarily played as the direct-damage artilleries. A caster's true power, however, lies with debuff and battlefield control. And where did I say that? I do not need to be lectured on what a spellcaster's "true" power is, having actually played one before. In that game, I did not need to control the battlefield, since that was taken care of by the fire domain wizard and the meleers. Why should I pack any direct damage spell, when I can just as well obliterate any opposition with carefully timed debuff/battlefield control/dot effects? If the exact modus operandi involves enervation (with a metamagic rod of maximize) followed by baleful polymorph, or the expensive combination of quickened cloudkill (via metamagic rod) and forcecage is irrelevant. There are times when blasting comes in handy, such as when under attack by hordes of minions or when the opposition has ways which counter the "battlefield control" options. A properly played and prepared caster should be able to handle almost any enemy without dealing a single point of HP damage. Since you usually don't know exactly what's around the corner and D&D isn't a system where people go out adventuring alone all the time, I'd say that's irrelevant. A wizard could be properly prepared with great control spells, but if he heads into the underdark alone, chances are he'll end up dead very quickly, since you can't teleport out of the underdark and all sorts of nasties designed to fight spellcasters live down there. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 01:58 PM | I said nothing inflammatory. So calling me a hun isn't inflammatory? If you want me to respond, namecalling isn't the way to go about it. Really, it is quite obnoxious. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-09-07, 02:14 PM | So calling me a hun isn't inflammatory?No, it isn't. "Hun" is short for "Honey." :uh-huh: If you really think that's inflammatory, then ignore it, stop side-tracking from the argument, and address the things I've said that actually have some kind of bearing on the argument. |
| Ra-Tiel09-09-07, 02:22 PM | The PCs may not face four encounters every day since this number changes based on circumstance. Nevertheless, the DM is supposed to provide multiple encounters per day, which in turn prevents the casters from going nova. And having 4 "encounters" in a city isn't ridiculous? You can only get robbed and assassinated so often before it grows either stupid or boring. Also, afaik there are no random encounter tables for "market district" or stuff. ;) You obviously didn't reread my post. A mounted fighter with levels in cavalier and dragonrider makes a great damage dealer that can very easily survive a combat. Not only does his charge inflict a lot of damage, his mount is more than capable of fighting as well. Well, just like you didn't know that spectral hand was a sor/wiz 2 necromancy spell from the Player's Handbook, I may not have all splatbooks available to look up what your fancy PrCs do. So if you were please so kind as to file me in what bonuses these classes provide to your mount... And where did I say that? You implied. All you seem to be focused on is how much damage martial adapts can deal and use that as the be all end all argument. I do not need to be lectured on what a spellcaster's "true" power is, having actually played one before. In that game, I did not need to control the battlefield, since that was taken care of by the fire domain wizard and the meleers. Wait a minute? Battlefield control by a meleer? Either he was using some sort of more or less twinked "half-giant psywar spiked chain karmic strike combat reflexes" build, or we're talking about "nice stuff that's almost battlefield control". When I speak of battlefield control, I mean things like black tentacles forcecage wall of fire wall of iron wall of force solid fog transmute mud/rock to rock/mud reverse gravity and NOT nice but basically useless (at least against the usually bigger monsters parties face at high levels) stuff like "I can trip within 20ft". There are times when blasting comes in handy, such as when under attack by hordes of minions or when the opposition has ways which counter the "battlefield control" options. Even in these situations is direct damage a weak choice. Why should I spend spell slots dealing energy damage, some of which may be even resisted, when I could just as well use a cloudkill or circle of death to more or less insta-gib all weaker enemies with a single spell? Since you usually don't know exactly what's around the corner and D&D isn't a system where people go out adventuring alone all the time, I'd say that's irrelevant. A wizard could be properly prepared with great control spells, but if he heads into the underdark alone, chances are he'll end up dead very quickly, since you can't teleport out of the underdark and all sorts of nasties designed to fight spellcasters live down there. On the contrary. I said "properly prepared" wizard. And with that I meant a caster who prepared battlefield/debuff/buff spells in his slots, and used magic items like scrolls or wands for the "normal" spells. Actually, in the underdark indirect battlefield control and summoning spells may even work BETTER than direct damage, as most creatures possess spell resistance down there. :P Also, where did you get that teleportation spells wouldn't work in the underdark? :confused: |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 02:22 PM | No, it isn't. "Hun" is short for "Honey." :uh-huh: If you really think that's inflammatory, then ignore it and address the things I've said that actually have some kind of bearing on the argument. The post in question that you demand that I reply to, while not directly inflammatory, is still confrontational, so I am inclined to ignore you. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-09-07, 02:31 PM | The post in question that you demand that I reply to, while not directly inflammatory, is still confrontational, so I am inclined to ignore you.Wait... so am I to understand that you're going to ignore me because I disagree with you? :uh-huh: |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 03:22 PM | And having 4 "encounters" in a city isn't ridiculous? You can only get robbed and assassinated so often before it grows either stupid or boring. Also, afaik there are no random encounter tables for "market district" or stuff. ;) And why are we assuming that this is all happening in the city, or that it's just being robbed/assassinated? Well, just like you didn't know that spectral hand was a sor/wiz 2 necromancy spell from the Player's Handbook OMG...I temporarily forgot something and asked for its location. I may not have all splatbooks available to look up what your fancy PrCs do. So if you were please so kind as to file me in what bonuses these classes provide to your mount... Cavalier = Complete Warrior Dragonrider = Draconomicon You implied. No I didn't. Quit putting words in my mouth. All you seem to be focused on is how much damage martial adapts can deal and use that as the be all end all argument. Again, I never said that, nor implied that. Wait a minute? Battlefield control by a meleer? Either he was using some sort of more or less twinked "half-giant psywar spiked chain karmic strike combat reflexes" build, or we're talking about "nice stuff that's almost battlefield control". When I speak of battlefield control, I mean things like black tentacles forcecage wall of fire wall of iron wall of force solid fog transmute mud/rock to rock/mud reverse gravity and NOT nice but basically useless (at least against the usually bigger monsters parties face at high levels) stuff like "I can trip within 20ft". Okay, so now we're on the same page. I had all of the wall spells and solid fog. Most of the time, we were in dungeons and I couldn't throw them around left and right because it would interfere with the other party members. The one time I got that chance was to enclose a guy in a wall of stone so that he couldn't barrage us with spells. Even in these situations is direct damage a weak choice. Why should I spend spell slots dealing energy damage, some of which may be even resisted, when I could just as well use a cloudkill or circle of death to more or less insta-gib all weaker enemies with a single spell? Because those instagibs don't produce any results if they fail. If you have someone who specializes in blasting, there is no need to dominate. On the contrary. I said "properly prepared" wizard. And with that I meant a caster who prepared battlefield/debuff/buff spells in his slots, and used magic items like scrolls or wands for the "normal" spells. Actually, in the underdark indirect battlefield control and summoning spells may even work BETTER than direct damage, as most creatures possess spell resistance down there. :P The SR and resistances are why you need support from other characters. Also, where did you get that teleportation spells wouldn't work in the underdark? :confused: In the Forgotten Realms book Underdark it says that casting a teleport spell to travel more than one mile requires a DC 35 spellcraft to avoid a mishap (usually travelling into a wall). |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 03:24 PM | Wait... so am I to understand that you're going to ignore me because I disagree with you? :uh-huh: No...you just were acting confrontational. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-09-07, 03:54 PM | No...you just were acting confrontational.I wasn't being any more confrontational that any of the other posters who disagreed with you. I just happened to call you out on it when you didn't respond to points I made. That being said, just because you don't like the way somebody said something doesn't mean that their point isn't valid and that you shouldn't consider and respond to it. HOWEVER, I'd like to go back to specifically addressing your issue with ToB's flavor, if nothing else can be accomplished, because we're now getting off topic. I will try to be less confrontational if doing so will cause you to be likely to respond... Now, you claim that the martial adepts do things that are completely out of flavor for D&D, and I think you are mistaken. I would like for you to show us anything at all in the ToB that isn't already part of D&D's flavor. More specifically, I'd like you to show any of the following in regards to the martial adept classes and disciplines: The Crusader is different in flavor from a core Paladin. The Warblade is different in flavor from a core Fighter. The Swordsage is different in flavor from a core Monk. Desert Wind is different in flavor from a core fire-specialized Gish. Devoted Spirit is different in flavor from a core Paladin or possibly Cleric. Diamond Mind is different in flavor from a core Monk or possibly a Swashbuckler. Iron Heart is different in flavor from a core Fighter. Setting Sun is different in flavor from a core Monk. Shadow Hand is different in flavor from the core Rogue/Shadowdancer. Stone Dragon is different in flavor from a core Dwarf Fighter (possibly Dwarven Defender). Tiger Claw is different in flavor from a core Barbarian. White Raven is different in flavor from a core Bard or Paladin or possibly a Marshal. If you cannot show any of the above, then I would like to know how is it possible for ToB's flavor to be a problem. |
| Ra-Tiel09-09-07, 03:56 PM | And why are we assuming that this is all happening in the city, or that it's just being robbed/assassinated? Because you are only running dungeon adventures, hacking mobs left and right without ever going into a city to have some intrigues or something more, well, socially focused? You see, the classical concept of balance is ok if the DM can constantly threaten the party with 4 encounters. That is no problem with the classic dungeoncrawling adventures. It only becomes a huge problem once you cannot simply drop some random monster on the party without having everyone go "WTF?!". And this most often happens in cities. OMG...I temporarily forgot something and asked for its location. And I provided the answer. ;) Cavalier = Complete Warrior Dragonrider = Draconomicon Which still doesn't tell me the bonuses to your mount... :rolleyes: [...] Okay, so now we're on the same page. I had all of the wall spells and solid fog. Most of the time, we were in dungeons and I couldn't throw them around left and right because it would interfere with the other party members. The one time I got that chance was to enclose a guy in a wall of stone so that he couldn't barrage us with spells. As mentioned above, exclusively making dungeoncrawls is no balance problem. If the DM notices the party is going way too fast or easy through the encounters he can always drop some more mobs in a room to wear them down. But the setting you mentioned is quite "anti-directdamage" as well. In such an environment you also cannot easily throw fireballs and lightning bolts around because they have AoEs, thus presenting the danger of accidentally hitting your own party members. Because those instagibs don't produce any results if they fail. If you have someone who specializes in blasting, there is no need to dominate. And blasting does produce any results? Basically you're only wasting resources and time until you drop the target's HP below 0. It doesn't matter if the dragon took 60 or 30 points of damage from your fireball, as long as the dragon has more than 0 HP it is completely irrelevant. A dragon (or any other monster) with 1 HP left can TPK your party just as well as one with 200 HP left. "Save or suffer" spells are mechanically the most potent form of contribution a caster (or any character at that) can bring to the table. In v3.5 there is no distinction between "uninjured" and "almost dead". So HP damage is for the most part of it worthless. [...] In the Forgotten Realms book Underdark it says that casting a teleport spell to travel more than one mile requires a DC 35 spellcraft to avoid a mishap (usually travelling into a wall). And a setting specific fluff-supplement has what relevance in a general rules and mechanics discussion? :thinks: |
| Jenrock09-09-07, 04:14 PM | back on topic: Jephlewis, I think a good place to start for a TOB game would be the Martial Compendium (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=804856). It has all sorts of neat disciplines, classes, and the like. It even has an entire campaign setting for the Tome of Battle. Off topic: I would like to implore all of you to take this argument to PM's (if it need be dicussed at all), as it has little bearing on the subject of this thread. |
| EvilVegan09-09-07, 04:26 PM | Cavalier = Complete Warrior Dragonrider = Draconomicon Which still doesn't tell me the bonuses to your mount... I think it would be the equivalent of a 15th level paladin mount. Assuming he went into the PRC at the earliest point possible. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 04:57 PM | I wasn't being any more confrontational that any of the other posters who disagreed with you. I just happened to call you out on it when you didn't respond to points I made. That being said, just because you don't like the way somebody said something doesn't mean that their point isn't valid and that you shouldn't consider and respond to it. HOWEVER, I'd like to go back to specifically addressing your issue with ToB's flavor, if nothing else can be accomplished, because we're now getting off topic. I will try to be less confrontational if doing so will cause you to be likely to respond... Now, you claim that the martial adepts do things that are completely out of flavor for D&D, and I think you are mistaken. I would like for you to show us anything at all in the ToB that isn't already part of D&D's flavor. More specifically, I'd like you to show any of the following in regards to the martial adept classes and disciplines: The Crusader is different in flavor from a core Paladin. The Warblade is different in flavor from a core Fighter. The Swordsage is different in flavor from a core Monk. Desert Wind is different in flavor from a core fire-specialized Gish. Devoted Spirit is different in flavor from a core Paladin or possibly Cleric. Diamond Mind is different in flavor from a core Monk or possibly a Swashbuckler. Iron Heart is different in flavor from a core Fighter. Setting Sun is different in flavor from a core Monk. Shadow Hand is different in flavor from the core Rogue/Shadowdancer. Stone Dragon is different in flavor from a core Dwarf Fighter (possibly Dwarven Defender). Tiger Claw is different in flavor from a core Barbarian. White Raven is different in flavor from a core Bard or Paladin or possibly a Marshal. If you cannot show any of the above, then I would like to know how is it possible for ToB's flavor to be a problem. The Swordsage was the one I found to be most anime-ish. Either that or it sounds like a Jedi Knight. Mostly, it's all in the description of the mental discipline stuff. The way it's worded and the way it's applied to melee weapons, it sometimes sounds like something out of Final Fantasy or Star Wars. This is one I have trouble explaining. |
| Feeb09-09-07, 05:25 PM | 2) It's overpowered One of my first characters was a dwarven fighter/defender that was entirely based on not getting hit. His damage output was ok, but nothing could hit him and even if they did, he had close to 200 HP. Notice that there is something seriously wrong with the system when some blade mage out of ToB can walk up to him and make a touch attack (with a melee weapon, of all things) which will reliably pierce through all of that armor. I'm sorry, but this is really laughable. The Dwarven Defender is one of the worst PrCs ever written. Fundamentally, it is a barbarian who isn't allowed to move while raging. A hindrance that is only "negated" after 10 levels of the PrC, at which point, you get to make a five foot step. Anything that uses touch attacks, melee or ranged (for example: an Arcane Trickster or base arcane caster focused on ray spells,) uses ranged attacks (a Fighter/archer build, cleric archer or ranger) or even has reach and a decent +attack mod totally slaughters this PrC. Your example is a total strawman. Here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12990532&postcount=262) is a far more apt comparison. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-09-07, 05:30 PM | Because you are only running dungeon adventures, hacking mobs left and right without ever going into a city to have some intrigues or something more, well, socially focused? Did I say that? Which still doesn't tell me the bonuses to your mount... :rolleyes: The bonuses associated with having a dragon as a mount depend entirely upon the dragon you negotiate with. A dragon will demand a payment of 500gp X HD per year of service. This means that I could theoretically buy the services of a gold dragon great wyrm for an entire year for only 20500gp. If I wanted to get really crazy, I could go to the ELH and negotiate with a prismatic dragon great wyrm. You can buy one of those for a year for only 39000gp. For what you get, this is insanely cheap. All of this is entirely theoretical, however, so it is not a guaruntee. Again, this entirely depends on how much money the PC has on hand, how good he is at negotiation (or his friends), and how willing the DM is to let the PC follow through. Nevertheless, a melee based PC with a dragon mount is like giving an artificer a large supply of jet fuel. But the setting you mentioned is quite "anti-directdamage" as well. In such an environment you also cannot easily throw fireballs and lightning bolts around because they have AoEs, thus presenting the danger of accidentally hitting your own party members. That's why I had levels in incantatrix and sculpt spell. And blasting does produce any results? Basically you're only wasting resources and time until you drop the target's HP below 0. It doesn't matter if the dragon took 60 or 30 points of damage from your fireball, as long as the dragon has more than 0 HP it is completely irrelevant. A dragon (or any other monster) with 1 HP left can TPK your party just as well as one with 200 HP left. "Save or suffer" spells are mechanically the most potent form of contribution a caster (or any character at that) can bring to the table. In v3.5 there is no distinction between "uninjured" and "almost dead". So HP damage is for the most part of it worthless. HP damage becomes a lot more powerful when you don't have a lot of it to spare. And a setting specific fluff-supplement has what relevance in a general rules and mechanics discussion? :thinks: The underdark is part of Faerun. It's an integral part of the setting, not fluff. |
| Ra-Tiel09-09-07, 06:55 PM | Did I say that? No. Instead you kept beating a dead horse. I have yet to meet the DM who can provide 4 threatening/challenging encounters per day in a metropolitan environment for - let's say - one week without the whole thing becoming utterly rediculous ("Wait, there are again assassins in our wardrobes?"). My point is still that basing the game's balance on 4 encounters per day is a very flawed mechanic. A DM cannot always guarantee 4 encounters (or the threat thereof) which leads to novaing - perhaps not immediately but sooner or later the players will find out. The bonuses associated with having a dragon as a mount depend entirely upon the dragon you negotiate with. A dragon will demand a payment of 500gp X HD per year of service. This means that I could theoretically buy the services of a gold dragon great wyrm for an entire year for only 20500gp. If I wanted to get really crazy, I could go to the ELH and negotiate with a prismatic dragon great wyrm. You can buy one of those for a year for only 39000gp. For what you get, this is insanely cheap. You want my honest opinion? This is the most rediculous thing I've read for a year's time. :doh: Taking the most powerful creature for any given CR as a mount, does really NOT prove that fighters don't suck at high levels. You see, if I bring my solar buddy with me, I can prove that healers don't suck... :rolleyes: :shifty: All of this is entirely theoretical, however, so it is not a guaruntee. Again, this entirely depends on how much money the PC has on hand, how good he is at negotiation (or his friends), and how willing the DM is to let the PC follow through. Nevertheless, a melee based PC with a dragon mount is like giving an artificer a large supply of jet fuel. You still base your "fighters don't suck" prove on the availability of freaking dragon mounts! Again, what does this show? Absolutely nothing. A character's mechanical credibility should not depend on some wonky mount/cohort/mercenary stuff. Also, you're just having one more weakness this way. I'm just waiting for the next diplomancer build to come across and talk your uber-leet-mount into eating you for twice the money you paid it. That's why I had levels in incantatrix and sculpt spell. Especially with metamagic battlefield control becomes so serious badass it's not even funny. Widened cloudkill? Twin black tentacles? Extended forcecage? Yes please! :D HP damage becomes a lot more powerful when you don't have a lot of it to spare. Not really. First, becoming resistant against certain attacks is rather easy (low level spells like resist energy, class features eg from the favored soul, or items like ring of energy resistance). Also, unless your DM is exceedingly generous with what you can learn from knowledge checks, there is no way (that doesn't involve the loss of more slots to divination spells) for you to know an unknown creature's immunities and resistances. Second, you're still wasting resources and actions. I'd rather do something more useful with my spell slots and actions than wasting a level 5 slot as a level 15 caster to not even deal enough damage to drop a CR 8 creature (cone of cold vs ogre barbarian). All non-twink builds going for direct damage also often rely on metamagiced low-level spells (scorching ray in combination with Arcane Thesis seems to be quite popular for this). The point is, why should I be using a level 8 or so slot and a sudden feat and charges from metamagic rods to deal a load of HP damage to a creature (damage that may be stopped by energy resistance/immunity, miss chances, or globe of invulnerability nonetheless!), when I could just as well take a level 7 slot and force the creature to make a Fort save or die? Creatures' HP and HD grow at a much larger rate than casterlevel dependent damage. It has been mathematically proven time and again. If you don't believe it, fine. But please stop claiming that direct damage was an effective and viable tactic at highlevel play. It simply isn't. There are easier, more effective, and more elegant ways of dealing with opponents than simply blasting away their HP. The underdark is part of Faerun. It's an integral part of the setting, not fluff. When did the OP say he wanted this discussion to deal with Faerūn? Did I miss the memo? :thinks: As far as I can remember, the OP asked if there was a "per encounter" conversion of the 3.5 core classes. He didn't mention FR at all. So, from my perspective, experience you have made with FR specific material is not really relevant to the discussion. Especially since FR has a name for material of questionable balancing. --------- Anyways, regarding the OP's question. I think it would require quite some tinkering with the mechanics. Just some ideas. Barbarian: modify rage to give better bonuses, as getting more uses per day is obsolete Bard: modify spells known and spells per day, modify bardic music from 1 time per day per level to 1 round per encounter per level Cleric: modify spells known and spells per day Druid: modify spells known and spells per day, modify wild shape to a shorter duration (eg 1 minute/druid level) Ranger: modify spells known and spells per day Sorcerer: modify spells known and spells per day Wizard: modify spells known and spells per day |
| Mandarbgrim09-09-07, 10:52 PM | My primary, and almost only, source of excitement regarding 4th edition is that they are moving in the direction of ToB concerning balance being per battle instead of encounters per day. I'm interested in attempts to transfer all the core classes over to such a system. As to the other arguments..... I do agree that the fluff can be a bit off for some of the schools being supernatural, but for the most part the idea of a swordsman setting up his opponent for one good strike is just as good of a fantasy interpretation as flailing at him with multiple "smaller" hits per round. I was also worried that they were overpowered on paper, but after seeing them in play I don't see it, especially compared to a Barbarian. I had a similiar reactions to Warlocks, as well. |
| Crimson_Concerto09-10-07, 12:25 AM | The Swordsage was the one I found to be most anime-ish. Either that or it sounds like a Jedi Knight. Mostly, it's all in the description of the mental discipline stuff. The way it's worded and the way it's applied to melee weapons, it sometimes sounds like something out of Final Fantasy or Star Wars. This is one I have trouble explaining.I just don't see anything about the Swordsage that screams anime unless you feel like yelling out "FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE!!!!!" every time you perform a maneuver, which nothing in ToB suggests is supposed to happen. I understand what you mean about D&D not putting too much emphasis on mental discipline when it comes to melee combat, but there are multiple places where it IS present, particularly when we look at classes like the Monk and Paladin, and even Fighters can be when we start looking at feat trees they may pick such as Combat Expertise, Combat Focus, or Weapon Focus. And then of course those are exactly the classes I'm saying the ToB classes are corresponding to. The Crusader's mental discipline is the same conviction and devotion a Paladin uses to smite his enemies. The Swordsage's meditation and mental approach to combat is the same kind of thing we see in the Monk's flavor. The Warblade even has class features which specifically are meant to make good use of a high INT score, just as a Combat-Expertise- or Combat-Focus-specialized Fighter would like. I just don't understand why you have a problem with the Crusader if you don't have a problem with the Paladin, I don't see why you have a problem with the Swordsage and not the Monk, and I don't see why you hate the Warblade but don't ban Fighters from taking Combat Expertise or similar feats. Yeah, a lot of things in core D&D can be taken as similar to the flavor of a jedi knight or videogame character, but they key is mutable flavor. While you certainly CAN play that type of character if you want to, you don't NEED to if you don't, and nothing suggests that anime or Star Wars need to be the default flavor present. I see that it must be very difficult to explain, but please try, or else there's no way I can see your point, and believe me I do want to see it; how else are we going to get this conversation anywhere if neither of us understands what the other is talking about? |
| jephlewis09-10-07, 01:02 AM | Well, the thing about CoDzilla is that it isn't as powerful as it is drummed up to be. Sure, the druid can wild shape into a T-rex, but that doesn't mean the T-rex is particularly menacing compared to other melee-based PCs. This assumes, of course, that the druid knows what a T-rex is. The character optimization boards give many details on clerics and druids, and why they may be slightly more powerful than other classes. I can't find what you are talking about? What book is it in? spectral hand is in the player's handbook, page 282, lower left hand corner. This spell allows for 'ranged touch attacks' when combined with a level four or lower spell. You stated earlier that 'ranged touch attacks' by the 'mage blade' made that class unbalanced; Wizards can do it with a spell in the PHB. I understand that you have other reasons for thinking tome of battle is overpowered, but the 'ranged touch attack' isn't new. The guy was supposed to stand between the monsters and the squishy people in the back. He was also one of my first characters and was created before ToB. I'd say he did the his job well based on how the campaign went. What I find irritating is the ability for blade mages to make those touch attacks with impunity. A caster eventually runs out of batteries (and must have the right spell prepared) and it's really risky for him to make touch attacks against a guy with an axe and armor spikes. The melee equivalent is a weapon of brilliant energy, but this is a pricey option and is still limited by the fact that it can be disarmed or dispelled. See above paragraph for a second level spell that can do 'ranged touch attacks'. The ranger doesn't get his WIS as an AC bonus. The favored enemy ability is nice, but it is n't useful against anything besides your favored enemy. Ranger spellcasting is also a nice ability, but it's negligable and I almost never use it. The number of class abilities don't matter. It's the impact that those abilities have. There are plenty of classes out there with a lot of class abilities, but the class as a whole isn't all that great. What the warblade gets are those maneuvers and stances. I didn't post about the crusader because I haven't paid much attention to it. I am wary of the damage pool ability, though. Concerning the underlined portion of your statement, I somewhat agree. How many crappy abilities equal one good ability? It depends on what you, me, or anyone else defines as 'good' and 'crappy'. Play styles will affect these definitions as well. Your viewpoint on tome of battle being 'broken' is shared by others, as is my opinion of 'I don't really see why/how it's broken'. Perhaps we have different play styles? I don't know... You have given me some things to think about, though. The Crusader is different in flavor from a core Paladin. The Warblade is different in flavor from a core Fighter. The Swordsage is different in flavor from a core Monk. Desert Wind is different in flavor from a core fire-specialized Gish. Devoted Spirit is different in flavor from a core Paladin or possibly Cleric. Diamond Mind is different in flavor from a core Monk or possibly a Swashbuckler. Iron Heart is different in flavor from a core Fighter. Setting Sun is different in flavor from a core Monk. Shadow Hand is different in flavor from the core Rogue/Shadowdancer. Stone Dragon is different in flavor from a core Dwarf Fighter (possibly Dwarven Defender). Tiger Claw is different in flavor from a core Barbarian. White Raven is different in flavor from a core Bard or Paladin or possibly a Marshal. I'm going to look into this as a basis for assigning tome of battle abilities to core classes. thank you very much for this! back on topic: Jephlewis, I think a good place to start for a TOB game would be the Martial Compendium (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=804856). It has all sorts of neat disciplines, classes, and the like. It even has an entire campaign setting for the Tome of Battle. Off topic: I would like to implore all of you to take this argument to PM's (if it need be dicussed at all), as it has little bearing on the subject of this thread. Thank you for the link; I'll be looking at it later tonight, and probably tomorrow as well. When did the OP say he wanted this discussion to deal with Faerūn? Did I miss the memo? :thinks: As far as I can remember, the OP asked if there was a "per encounter" conversion of the 3.5 core classes. He didn't mention FR at all. So, from my perspective, experience you have made with FR specific material is not really relevant to the discussion. Especially since FR has a name for material of questionable balancing. --------- Anyways, regarding the OP's question. I think it would require quite some tinkering with the mechanics. Just some ideas. Barbarian: modify rage to give better bonuses, as getting more uses per day is obsolete Bard: modify spells known and spells per day, modify bardic music from 1 time per day per level to 1 round per encounter per level Cleric: modify spells known and spells per day Druid: modify spells known and spells per day, modify wild shape to a shorter duration (eg 1 minute/druid level) Ranger: modify spells known and spells per day Sorcerer: modify spells known and spells per day Wizard: modify spells known and spells per day You're right, and you didn't miss the memo; It is true the current campaign i'm running is set in the forgotten realms, but I never asked for anything specific to that campaign setting. And thank you for the ideas. My primary, and almost only, source of excitement regarding 4th edition is that they are moving in the direction of ToB concerning balance being per battle instead of encounters per day. I'm interested in attempts to transfer all the core classes over to such a system. That's why I made this thread; so far, this is what I got: Post #7 by Corvus_obscurus [Thanks Corvus!] post #13 by Crimson_concerto [Thanks Crimson!] post #32 by Crimson_concerto [I favor this one; each class gets one school] post #34 by Jenrock [Thanks Jenrock! Not only do you give me a LINK, but you also implore everyone to get back on topic. I appreciate that.] link posted by Jenrock http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D804856 post #39 by Ra Tiel [Thanks Ra Tiel!] All other posts are 'the fighter is bad', 'the fighter is not bad', 'tome of battle is bad', and 'tome of battle is not bad'. Oh well, at least I got some ideas to tide me over until fourth edition... jephlewis |
| Novem09-10-07, 07:31 AM | As I mentioned earlier, I take Martial Arts. The Martial Arts in question are nothing like Anime or movie martial arts. They were invented in the U.S. by an American, and I can tell you after taking them that the ToB idea is fundamentally a much more realistic idea than standard D&D combat. I also practice with a weapon best described as a Bastard Sword, and, let me tell you, fighting with it is no different from Karate. To the OP, as I mentioned, I am developing a similar system to use in my games. Currently, it's a variant Fighter, but when I'm finished, you can have it. |
| fighter_mcwarrior09-10-07, 02:46 PM | No. Instead you kept beating a dead horse. I have yet to meet the DM who can provide 4 threatening/challenging encounters per day in a metropolitan environment for - let's say - one week without the whole thing becoming utterly rediculous ("Wait, there are again assassins in our wardrobes?"). For you to claim that I am beating a dead horse is a little shaky, especially since you are the one who keeps on assuming city encounters. I am assuming both city and dungeon encounters, and even in a city-oriented campaign, you bound to enter the sewers or something like it at least once. My point is still that basing the game's balance on 4 encounters per day is a very flawed mechanic. A DM cannot always guarantee 4 encounters (or the threat thereof) which leads to novaing - perhaps not immediately but sooner or later the players will find out. You want my honest opinion? This is the most rediculous thing I've read for a year's time. :doh: Taking the most powerful creature for any given CR as a mount, does really NOT prove that fighters don't suck at high levels. You see, if I bring my solar buddy with me, I can prove that healers don't suck... :rolleyes: :shifty: You still base your "fighters don't suck" prove on the availability of freaking dragon mounts! Again, what does this show? Absolutely nothing. A character's mechanical credibility should not depend on some wonky mount/cohort/mercenary stuff. Also, you're just having one more weakness this way. I'm just waiting for the next diplomancer build to come across and talk your uber-leet-mount into eating you for twice the money you paid it. That was the rule given in the Draconomicon. I am only saying that this is just one very powerful option available to a fighter. Even a really good diplomacy-focused type of NPC is going to have a very hard time convincing a dragon mount to leave, especially when the dragon is lawful or good (or both). He could have a wondrous diplomacy score, but I'd like to know just how he managed to get ahold of that much gold. I'll put this into perspective by comparing wealth by level tables in the DMG. The PC will have enough cash on hand to meet the minimum price for purchasing the services of a gold dragon great wyrm by about 10th - 12th level, assuming he saves up his money. By comparison, the NPC would have to be at least 17th level to have a chance of meeting twice that amount. Since he's negotiating with a lawful good dragon, most likely the negotiations will fail and the NPC will get roasted. Especially with metamagic battlefield control becomes so serious badass it's not even funny. Widened cloudkill? Twin black tentacles? Extended forcecage? Yes please! :D And then comes the problem of actually fitting all those spell slots together (wait, I'm burning an 8th/9th level spell slot to do this?). spells like resist energy, class features eg from the favored soul, or items like ring of energy resistance). Also, unless your DM is exceedingly generous with what you can learn from knowledge checks, there is no way (that doesn't involve the loss of more slots to divination spells) for you to know an unknown creature's immunities and resistances. Not many classes get energy resistance and rings of resist energy get really expensive if you try to buy 'em all. I don't know where you got that rule from, but energy resistances and vulnerabilities are listed under special qualities and can be determined from a knowledge check. Second, you're still wasting resources and actions. I'd rather do something more useful with my spell slots and actions than wasting a level 5 slot as a level 15 caster to not even deal enough damage to drop a CR 8 creature (cone of cold vs ogre barbarian). All non-twink builds going for direct damage also often rely on metamagiced low-level spells (scorching ray in combination with Arcane Thesis seems to be quite popular for this). You'd be wasting resources against someone who was able to resist being OHKO'd anyway. The point is, why should I be using a level 8 or so slot and a sudden feat and charges from metamagic rods to deal a load of HP damage to a creature (damage that may be stopped by energy resistance/immunity, miss chances, or globe of invulnerability nonetheless!), when I could just as well take a level 7 slot and force the creature to make a Fort save or die? You assume that none of the creatures you face will be resistant in any way to spells requiring a save to avoid losing, yet they all somehow have energy resistances/immunities? Sounds like a double standard, not to mention delibrately ignoring creatures which are more affected by blasting than by one-shot spells (undead?). Creatures' HP and HD grow at a much larger rate than casterlevel dependent damage. It has been mathematically proven time and again. If you don't believe it, fine. But please stop claiming that direct damage was an effective and viable tactic at highlevel play. It simply isn't. There are easier, more effective, and more elegant ways of dealing with opponents than simply blasting away their HP. Mathematically proven on paper doesn't always translate into practical game mechanics. For an example, I will use the magical gatling gun. Get a rod of many wands, stuff it full of wands of scorching ray (max caster level), then give it to an incantatrix with the twin spell feat. This does 72d6 fire damage, which translates to anywhere between 72 and 432 fire damage. If the incantatrix has the feat double wand wielder, give him a second rod for twice the fun. On paper, it all looks great, but this isn't practical in an actual game due to the cost of the materials and the fact that it runs out of batteries after a few uses. When did the OP say he wanted this discussion to deal with Faerūn? Did I miss the memo? :thinks: As far as I can remember, the OP asked if there was a "per encounter" conversion of the 3.5 core classes. He didn't mention FR at all. So, from my perspective, experience you have made with FR specific material is not really relevant to the discussion. Especially since FR has a name for material of questionable balancing. Considering half of what you've been saying isn't relevant to the OP at all, you don't have much room to talk here. |
| Ra-Tiel09-10-07, 03:16 PM | For you to claim that I am beating a dead horse is a little shaky, especially since you are the one who keeps on assuming city encounters. I am assuming both city and dungeon encounters, and even in a city-oriented campaign, you bound to enter the sewers or something like it at least once. And yet you fail to provide an explaination how a DM could reliably threaten 4 encounters every single day for a prolonged time in a metropolitan environment. [...] I am only saying that this is just one very powerful option available to a fighter. Wrong. This is an option open for all characters. Now, what if I put my wizard or druid also on a dragon? Then it's suddenly all equal again, and your fighter is back with the losers in the back of the bus. (Anyone got that reference? :P ) Even a really good diplomacy-focused type of NPC is going to have a very hard time convincing a dragon mount to leave, especially when the dragon is lawful or good (or both). He could have a wondrous diplomacy score, but I'd like to know just how he managed to get ahold of that much gold. [...] Why? The dragon still is an NPC, and changing an NPC from hostile to helpful (even with a single full round action) should be possible when you got all that nifty prestige class levels. And why should the dragon, now that he's helpful to the other NPC and even willing to risk his life for him, charge him money? ;) And then comes the problem of actually fitting all those spell slots together (wait, I'm burning an 8th/9th level spell slot to do this?). Ever heard of metamagic rods? Not many classes get energy resistance and rings of resist energy get really expensive if you try to buy 'em all. Who said all? One or two against the most often used energy types (fire and cold) should be enough. I don't know where you got that rule from, but energy resistances and vulnerabilities are listed under special qualities and can be determined from a knowledge check. Wrong.[...] In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. [...] There are 0 rules for it, all depends on the mood of your DM. Instead of giving you the monster's resistances or type, he could just as well tell you its favored bard song or preferred food flavor. :rolleyes: You assume that none of the creatures you face will be resistant in any way to spells requiring a save to avoid losing, yet they all somehow have energy resistances/immunities? Sounds like a double standard, not to mention delibrately ignoring creatures which are more affected by blasting than by one-shot spells (undead?). You know a creature immune to forcecage? Well, teleportation/planeshifting allows one to get out of it, but outright immune? Please tell me, which book and page? Or immunity to black tentacles? Now, I know you can get a ring of freedom of movement (or the spell), but natural immunity to grapple checks? I must have missed something, please enlighten me. Ok, undead, constructs and oozes being immune to energy drain and related effects is obvious, I admit that (however, there's always undeath to death to deal with lesser undead ;) ). [...] Considering half of what you've been saying isn't relevant to the OP at all, you don't have much room to talk here. Now, I seem to have issues with my memory. Could you please remind me of who was it who threw around "baaah ToB is teh b0rk3n, dont use it, it suckZ!!one" in post #3 in this thread and since has been posting zero on the actual topic? :rolleyes: Compared to that, the other half of what I've been saying looks quite impressive. :P |