Post/Author/DateTime	Post
inthesto 02-24-08, 02:04 AM	Recently I was invited to play in an experimental D&D campaign run by one of my friends. As of late, I've been DMing an Iron Heroes campaign, so I gladly accepted, since playing is much more stress-free than DMing, and something I haven't really had the chance to do in a while. This is all fine and dandy for now, but the problem comes with character creation. The other PCs have already decided their classes: cleric, druid, rogue, and dread necromancer. The role this leaves me is pretty damn obvious, but I don't mind since everyone knows that I prefer playing melee combatants anyway. The problem is, I'm so attuned to IH now (even though I've only run five sessions), I go back to the D&D melee classes and I feel like I'm just taking ten steps backwards. I categorically refuse to play a paladin, barbarians just aren't to my taste for some reason or the other, fighters are completely hosed for reasons I don't need to go over, and rangers are pigeon-holed into one of two feat paths that I don't want to pursue. As of now, I have a Ranger 2/Fighter 1 (all characters start at level 3), who uses a double axe and is on the path to a Dervish (ComWar). Not the worst thing I've ever cooked up, but I'm pretty sure that when my senses tell me I've made a gimpy build, I've made a gimpy build. My DMs have urged me to pursue a Warblade or something else in ToB, but frankly I'm not interested in learning and entirely new set of spells, and more importantly I'm not interested in playing a per-encounter caster. I also entertained the idea of playing a gish, but considering we start at 3rd level and probably won't even reach 10th, I'm just going to be mucking through the mud of the gish's weakest levels without the payoff of the fun higher levels. I honestly think I've run into a myriad of dead ends here. I have a pretty comprehensive collection of splatbooks, but there are no melee-based core classes in those worth looking at (ComWar really should be thrown into a fire for this offense). I'm also not insane enough to try to convert some kind of IH material, because then the power curve is probably gonna end up looking more like a power paraboloid. I'm really looking for the tough-as-nails bruiser archetype, but with some kind of spin that makes it interesting. Is this one of those cases where I'm just barking up the wrong tree all together and will ultimately have to concede to the splatbook that I don't want to open? (ToB, for those of you in the dark).
Shadowhowler 02-24-08, 02:30 AM	I think you may be stuck delving into the ToB. You've gone over most of the melee based ideas in D&D that are NOT ToB... and it seems to me you are not interisted in any of them. That means that the ToB (And most likely, by what your describing you want to play, a Warblade) may be your only option for something fresh and 'not gimpy'. You could try the Rogue3/Swashbuckler17 with Darring outlaw... it's a differant sort of melee 'build'... but your party already has a Rogue and you want something Burly... the Swash/Rogue build is all about multiple attacks and Sneak attack damage. You could do a Ranger17/Scout3 with Swift Hunter build... but again, while this is interisting, effective and differant, it does not sound like what your looking for. If your trying to make a Melee class anywhere NEAR what IH has spoiled you for... the Warblade is your best bet. If you pick your stuff right... you can do a Warblade that really does not feel all that much like a 'per ecounter caster' as you called it... and the Warblades ability to recover with an attack means that they can use their stuff much more freely in combat then the other classes in the ToB. Possible exception being the Crusader, but I find their mechanics wonky and annoying. Anyway... good luck.
eamon 02-24-08, 09:10 AM	I'd also recommend ToB, despite your misgivings. It's not as complex as may seem, especially if you choose to avoid complicating factors. The basics are simple, and if you just focus on one path, you don't need to learn that much. As to the per encounter issues... I'd say, don't worry, and roll with it. You could even choose to go crusader for the literal random factor, if that suits you. If the character concept pleases you (a fighter with a few more options than normal, an artisan, so to speak), then the mechanics won't be the problem. No lazing about, sit down, read the thing and enjoy! Seriously though, it's not fun to read mechanics, but it's better to just do it once, focus on the things you need, then to constantly second guess yourself with a build you believe is gimped, and which requires much more complex balancing and more distractions from roleplaying (such as heavily multiclassed characters). You could go for a duskblade, should you enjoy and essentially core fighter with a little bit of spellcasting thrown in. I think the knight is boring, but it is playable. It's underpowered, but with enough support from the druid, a monk could be a good bruiser, and it's more fun tactically owing to it's enhanced mobility. Unfortunately, it's truly not powerful. You might convince your DM to at least let you choose the bonus feats more freely, or perhaps raise the hit-die to d10 and improve wholeness of body, anything to improve the survivability at low levels (but without potentially introducing accidental game-breakage).
Novabomb 02-24-08, 09:34 AM	The other PCs have already decided their classes: cleric, druid, rogue, and dread necromancer. The role this leaves me is pretty damn obvious I do not know your group, but the role that I would see missing is the Batman (aka Wizard). Between the CoDzillas, you have plenty of melee potential. It seems to me that melee is what you want to do, and thats cool. First you should ask yourself what type of melee.
inthesto 02-24-08, 11:03 AM	You could do a Ranger17/Scout3 with Swift Hunter build... but again, while this is interisting, effective and differant, it does not sound like what your looking for. I've been itching to try out the Swift Hunter feat for a while, but I'm still hesitant to take a character that skirmishes rather than stands toe-to-toe. I'd also like to see if I could somehow combine this with a Dervish, but the Dervish is so stupidly feat-intense with crappy feats that I'd probably never hit that point in this campaign. If your trying to make a Melee class anywhere NEAR what IH has spoiled you for... the Warblade is your best bet. If you pick your stuff right... you can do a Warblade that really does not feel all that much like a 'per ecounter caster' as you called it... and the Warblades ability to recover with an attack means that they can use their stuff much more freely in combat then the other classes in the ToB. It's still the fact that it's a casting mechanic that bothers me. I'm looking into it now, but it's gonna take me a long while to just get the different schools straight in my head. You could go for a duskblade, should you enjoy and essentially core fighter with a little bit of spellcasting thrown in. I think the knight is boring, but it is playable. Thought about Duskblade, but I'm not sure what to think about it. I've played a Knight before, and while I'd like to redesign its flavor into a more gladiator-type, I agree that it's a little boring and it doesn't fit into the campaign setting anyway.
Cartigan 02-24-08, 11:23 AM	What about the Psionic classes?
CrawlingChaos 02-24-08, 11:38 AM	Play a Half Orc Cleric of Hextor, domains War and Destruction, and work with you buddy Cleric to make sure you both cover different areas of Cleric spells. He could manage healing, some buffing and turning undead and you could go damage and melee enhancer spells. Really, there is no reason to play a class when you dont feel confortable about it. And a Half Orc Cleric is a hell of a melee power. Also, one of the best classes to take the role of defensive tanks, in my opnion, certainly is a Initiate of the 7fold Veil. That's a class that keeps all the bad guys at bay. But it has a very high level entrance requirement :P In short: play with what you feel like. At last resort, the druid's animal companion can be a good melee tank. PS: I don't like the all-new mechanics in ToB either.
Drag0nUL 02-24-08, 11:46 AM	I really don't think your party lacks a melee character. Between the druid's animal companion, the cleric and the druid himself, tanking should be pretty much covered. What you truly lack is an utility spellcaster. So I would suggest either wizard or psion. However if melee is what you feel like playing, I'd suggest one of the following: melee-oriented cleric, duskblade, psychic warrior.
inthesto 02-24-08, 11:59 AM	I forgot to include some odd details about the other members of my party, didn't I? The guy who's playing the cleric is kind of an oddball when he makes his characters. He originally intended on playing a Healer with the houserule of making them spontaneous casters, but the DMs pushed him towards being a cleric instead. He intends on frontline supporting by using a tower shield for full cover without proficiency in it. It'll be amusing to see in play, but it's not something I intend on doing myself. On the other hand, the druid is starting at level 1 due to some Necropolitan template that I'm not familiar. She should catch up soon enough, but she's admitted that she will be dead weight in combat for a fight or two. Since the arcane caster is a dread necromancer, I'm thinking I could try to pull the standard Wizard + Militia -> Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion build. Question would be whether I want to specialize, focused specialize, and a bunch of other crap. Or if I really want to deal with a low-level gish in the first place. Maybe I'll just give Alienist a shot.
Drag0nUL 02-24-08, 12:07 PM	You could try to play a Focused Specialist conjurer with the alternate features from Unearthened Arcana (that let you summon as a standard action and give you Augment Summoning). Yous should have enough summoning spells to provide reasonable tanking.
Cartigan 02-24-08, 12:40 PM	I really don't think your party lacks a melee character. Between the druid's animal companion, the cleric and the druid himself, tanking should be pretty much covered. I'm pretty sure the Dread Necromancer can get scary in it's own right. What you truly lack is an utility spellcaster. That's what I thought.
LordTarmos 02-24-08, 01:11 PM	This is the best piece of advice I can give. whatever character you decide whether you stick with your melee, or go with a utility caster. If he is whinpy on you want him improved, take your build to character optimization board give a complete run down of what you have attributes, feats, class levels, spells, everything (the more you give them the better off you will be) make sure you tell them Tob is out(some will still try to go there) (mention the dervish idea, they love that one.)and sit back and watch him improve. They will probably take him to extremes(if you do not want him that powerful) you take their advice and improvements that you want to keep and go with your new character. They are really good at what they do.Or go into the search above and put in dervish and look for posts from the char ops board and use those builds. But if you go to the boards they can tell you what will and won't go tgether.
Cartigan 02-24-08, 02:16 PM	If the people on CharOp are anything like they are here, they will still spend several posts each trying to convince you to use ToB, after providing ToB "alternative" builds.
LazyNinja 02-24-08, 02:54 PM	They're right, people are going to try to convince you to use ToB. Me, for instance. I was in the same boat last summer. I was getting back into D&D, I'm not that into casters, and I wanted a fairly easy but effective melee character to have fun with. People kept suggesting ToB, but I was resistant because I didn't want to learn a new mechanic (still haven't gotten around to picking up Psionics for the same reason). Eventually I settled on a middling ranger-esque build, heavily modded with alternate class features to make it more palatable. After playing for one level, I grabbed ToB and leafed through it. I wish I'd done it earlier. Are there new things to learn? Yeah, a few, but if you're contemplating taking on the micro-management required of a wizard, it's not going to be much work. Starting as level 3 Warblade, you've only got access to 1st- and 2nd-level maneuvers, and only from 5 schools, so only look at those, nothing higher. Focus in one or two schools and pick whatever looks cool or interesting. No matter what you do you'll be more effective than a fighter or ranger. It may look "caster-y" on paper, but it plays like a warrior, and it's hella fun. Which is kind of the whole point, right?
chibishuffle 02-24-08, 03:15 PM	I agree with the others melee role is filled nicely. I recommend the alienist as the OP mentioned. I think given what you've said about your group it'll be fun an undead druid and a dread necromancer. Power really isn't an issue as alienist is full casting and familiar progression so thats all set. You can have fun with it name your familiar something adorable like fluffy or Mr. nibbles then when it transforms into mass of tentacles talk baby talk to it and frighten people. Have fun with it. If the need to smash does come over you there is polymorph :)
Cartigan 02-24-08, 03:21 PM	I would think you are lacking an arcane caster, not even a utility - a Dread Necromancer is not a dedicated caster. It focuses on Necromancy, purely. The Cleric can probably fight and I'm pretty sure the Druid is going to hurt my brain if I think about it. After a while, what you are going to need is a real arcanist.
inthesto 02-24-08, 04:21 PM	Yeah, I finally decided on playing a wizard, though there are currently two versions and I don't know which one to use yet. One is a transmuter with the Militia feat to eventually go into Eldritch Knight; the other is a conjurer who's gonna go into Alienist. Either way, the character's background is relatively the same, so I'll decide which one to use next session. Thanks for the redirection. :cool:
Sinfire Titan 02-24-08, 04:26 PM	Actually, ToB may not be the only option, though anything I will recomend will require a little bit of rules-delving. Binders from the ToM can make expert tanks, especially with the PrCs offered to them and the Warforged as the race (though any of the races can do the job just as well, I feel that the Warforged have a unique flavor and mechanical compatibility with ToM and MoI). The Incarnate, Totemist, and Soulborn can easily replace a Tank with their Soulmelds and class features, though they are most effective at it when using a potent race. Personal Experience has lead me to the conclusion that Dragonborn Warforged with the Adamantine or Mithral Body feats are often the best at this, as they are capable of shelling out massive walls with their improved Con scores and can pose a solid threat in melee. Totemists in particular can be a nightmare in combat with the right Melds shaped, and a level-dip into Barbarian for Pounce can end the fight much faster than may be needed. Vow of Poverty is perhaps the best route with the Incarnate, unless you are a Warforged Dragonborn. It makes up for their lack of BAB and can free up precious Essentia for their Melds even at the lower levels, and should the need arise you can always just pour it on anyways. Complete Champion, Scoundrel, and Mage opened up a whole new can of worms for any class you pick. Take a look at them, and try building a Daring Outlaw with the Trickery Devotion and TWFing tree. Your allies will be astounded at the higher levels just from you and your clone's ability to rip through the enemies without a single level of spellcasting. Add in the Dvati race from Dragon Compendium for even more power-housing with TWFing. And finally, take a look at some of the classes on these boards. Tempest Stormwind's Marshal fix, BlaineTog's Soulkinfe, and the Sublime Way Ranger are all excellent at what they replace. Don't neglect Barbarians either, a Frenzied Berserker is a death sentence to the enemies, and your Dread Necromancer can keep you at bay for the party's sake.
Bergtann 02-24-08, 06:37 PM	Duskblade->Sand Shaper->Duskblade ? Wildshaping Ranger -> Master of Many Forms ? Fighter -> Suel Arcanamach -> Abjurant Champion? Barbarian/Fighter -> Primeval -> Warshaper ? Battle Sorcerer -> Sand Shaper -> Abjurant Champion ? Or for something a bit off the wall: Wildshaping Ranger -> Master of Flies
Salla 02-24-08, 07:16 PM	a Frenzied Berserker is a death sentence to the enemies, And the rest of the party ...
Sinfire Titan 02-24-08, 07:33 PM	And the rest of the party ... A Dread Necromancer can deal with a Berserker! For a minute or two.
Raiden Drake 02-24-08, 10:57 PM	I have a friend with a similar problem; he don't like ToB and loves to play melee. I allow him to play a IH character, with the only restriction that he gets no magic item at all, even if he gets a magic sword, the sword magic just don't work for him; and he use IH as writen, different experience for level up, and feat progression. The in game reason for not using magic is that he don't have the "magic shadow" that everyone else have, this have give me some interesting plot hooks. D&D and IH are prefectly compatible, at the end of the IH players handbook there's coversion rules.
inthesto 02-25-08, 12:33 AM	I have a friend with a similar problem; he don't like ToB and loves to play melee. I allow him to play a IH character, with the only restriction that he gets no magic item at all, even if he gets a magic sword, the sword magic just don't work for him; and he use IH as writen, different experience for level up, and feat progression. The in game reason for not using magic is that he don't have the "magic shadow" that everyone else have, this have give me some interesting plot hooks. D&D and IH are prefectly compatible, at the end of the IH players handbook there's coversion rules. Again, I already considered that, but I noticed a number of problems myself. The big bad one is the fact that IH point-buy is on a completely different scale from D&D point-buy, and the obvious reason would be because base stats are so much more important in IH due to no stat-boosting spells or items. The problem is, if an IH character uses IH point-buy, his stats are amazingly superior to D&D characters at the start, but will eventually get outstripped when other characters have their +4 Belts of Hill Giant Strength and +6 Headbands of intellect. Also, this raises the question of why equipment just works differently on the IH character with no explanation. Why does armor add to defense on anyone else, but it's DR on the armiger? Why does a roguewith the TWF feat use a double-weapon at -2/-2 with 1X STR and .5X STR whereas executioner uses it at -2/-4 with 1.5X STR on both ends? Why does a fighter get to power attack with a glaive while a man-at-arms doesn't? Ideally, I'd love to import an IH character, but the fact is that if I have this difficult a time convincing myself of it, it's pretty obvious that I can't convince my DMs, who were hesitant enough just to consider importing attack challenges (whoo, do I love magic bias or what).
Sachiel 02-25-08, 12:19 PM	I will have to parrot the "Go Warblade" sentiment. Fighter's armor and weapon proficiencies (minus ranged weapons). Barbarian's hit dice. Per encounter "attack spells" that refresh if you use a full attack. Good choice of always active stances.
Raiden Drake 02-25-08, 12:39 PM	Sadly D&D as it is rigth now is a very caster centric game, you are nothing if you are not using magic.
Etarnon 02-25-08, 08:30 PM	Screw "the only role left open." Play the character you want. If not, or they don't want you to, walk. I'm not gonna play something just because it fits the hole left for me...unless it's something I wanted or am willing to play.
JasonOrlandoHawk 02-25-08, 10:38 PM	I really don't know why Fighters have such a bad reputation. I've seen several strait fighter builds, or Fighter + PrC that shine nicely, and I've even done a few myself. ToB isn't bad, but it continues the pattern in D&D that I truly hate, a.k.a.: Heavy Armor is a tactical disadvantage, unless you're a cleric or a dwarf. But to the main issue, I know the OP has already looked into a caster (Wizards truly rock, IMHO). Still, if you're itching to play melee, look into some monster races. Minotaurs, even with their Racial Hit Dice & LA, are a terror in melee. Minotaur really works well w/ any HD/BAB class (Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger), and Rhino's Hide makes Powerful Charge that much deadlier. And that's not the only monster race you could use. Considering your party, I don't think a monster would be too abnormal.
Shadowhowler 02-25-08, 11:24 PM	I really don't know why Fighters have such a bad reputation. I've seen several strait fighter builds, or Fighter + PrC that shine nicely, and I've even done a few myself. ToB isn't bad, but it continues the pattern in D&D that I truly hate, a.k.a.: Heavy Armor is a tactical disadvantage, unless you're a cleric or a dwarf. I don't know what you mean by this... Crusaders from ToB LOVE heavy Armour... only Swordsages and Warblades do not get it as a class feature.
inthesto 02-25-08, 11:42 PM	I've already written up my character and made a rudimentary background for him (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=995850). I'm honestly itching to play him at this point, so further discussion basically boils down to "why do fighters suck". And they do. Don't argue.
Shadowhowler 02-26-08, 11:07 AM	And they do. Don't argue. *I* won't argue... but I'm sure someone will. The character idea sounds interisting, BTW. I like unique and screwed up character concepts. Just be sure not to go to 'over the top' with it and make it campy. There is a fine line between unique and silly in those cases.
JasonOrlandoHawk 02-26-08, 02:12 PM	I don't know what you mean by this... Crusaders from ToB LOVE heavy Armour... only Swordsages and Warblades do not get it as a class feature. I'm inclined to disagree. Any class with Balance as a class skill probably does not "love" Heavy Armor, even if they can use it. I could see Deep Stone Sentinels and Ruby Knight Vindicators wearing heavy armor, but overall, ToB behaves like the rest of D&D, Heavy Armor just isn't that practical of an option. Yeah, I've seen my fair share of cool Martial Arts movies, and I've even studied Martial Arts, and I'd still rather have a shield and thick armor. ToB is good for what it portrays, I just am tired of Heavy Armor being treated like a tactical disadvantage.
Arminel 02-26-08, 08:28 PM	Tome of Battle can seem overwhelming, but once you set yourself into a class, it becomes a lot easier. I was hesitant but tried one anyways and was pleased. For a straight up Tank, I think Crusader is one of the better choices, but Warblade fits well too. As for a Gish, the Duskblade (PHB2) is pretty solid in my view. Armored casting for medium armor, spell channeling, and quick cast is frosting on the already delicious cake. Personally, I'd like a slightly more versatile spell list, but you can't have everything. Take a fairly standard fighter build and add spells. Tripper? You'll have the Int, so grab Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and a Guisarme unless you want to spend the feat on a Spiked Chain. Massive hitter? Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Shocktrooper or Power Attack, Cleave, etc. Quick cast + True Strike + Power Attack is a solid combination for damage dealing at many levels. Because of the sheer number of spells, Arcane Strike is actually a good choice too. In addition, the Defensively, there is something to be considered, but Shield Specialization + Shield Ward and the other new Shield feats from Player's Handbook 2. I saw a Player using Spell Channeling with a thrown Shield, but I don't know if it is strictly RAW. Versatile Spellcaster from Races of the Dragon is a great feat, making those numerous 1st level spell slots into 2nd level, and so on and so forth. There's a lot of good options.
Endarrion 02-26-08, 10:30 PM	ToB is good for what it portrays, I just am tired of Heavy Armor being treated like a tactical disadvantage. Because it is. Thick armor and a shield are the best way to go IRL sword-fighting, probably, but then again, this isn't real life, it's D&D, and D&D is notoriously bad at marrying fantasy and real life. It's like the whole abstract idea of hitpoints. I see this as yet another reason to look forward to 4th ed. This is something they've promised to fix in particular, along with the only good weapons being greatswords and reach weapons. And the whole problem with heavy armor existed way before the "current trend." There's always that time when you need to get moving, and the short-legged ones and the ones in armor feel the pain of reduced movement while the unencumbered human lopes ahead. EDIT: I'm starting a new thread in the Equipment forum.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 09:14 AM	I'm inclined to disagree. Any class with Balance as a class skill probably does not "love" Heavy Armor, even if they can use it. Just becuase they have a skill on their class skill list that is subject to armour check penalty you think this means the class does not favor Heavy Armour??? I'd say thats a pretty narrow and skeptical viwe. Let me put it this way... I have seen 3 Crusaders played so far... all 3 of which used Heavy Armour, all 3 of which were designed to be be big time Tanks... and all 3 of which were VERY effective.