I think it Might be the Mage; Not the Fighter that's broken

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can't speak for him, but its not the stances themselves, per se, but rather their exclusivity that sparked my initial negative reaction.

Once upon a time, HERO had a book called Ultimate Martial Artist for its 4Ed rules. It detailed 20+ martial arts maneuvers broken down by their effects, each costing 3-6 build points. The GM could arrange them into package deals which- along with certain other skills- represented particular martial arts styles. You could even have a given form be able to use all, some, or none of its maneuvers with weapons.

That book also included rules for importing those maneuvers into GURPS, "level based systems" and other RPGs.

(Yes, that was a non-trademark infringing way of saying D&D...at the time, 2Ed.)

I did much the same for 3.X, but my game group is too conservative to use them.

But unlike ToB stances (or the 4Ed powers they eventually inspired) which are linked to specific ToB classes, the maneuvers were open to any PC who took martial arts.

IOW, you could have a Wizard who studied Shao Lin Kung Fu and knew how to do Flying Kicks or use his staff to do sweeps- effectively. Your Cleric could know Capoira. Your Scout could know Savate.

Instead, ToB takes whatever goodness the martial stances may offer the game and lock them up with particular classes. They could just as easily have used ToB to present a revised combat system for all classes modified along the lines of HERO's.

That's 4Ed, right? Nope- 4Ed locks particular martial maneuvers into particular classes. Meanwhile, under the modified HERO system, any PC could learn any maneuver. Instead of your Cleric learning Capoira, he could learn Savate. Or everyone in the party could learn Kung Fu...

(cue the music)

"Everybody was kung-fu fightin!"

 

[Sadrik]

Not that this is without value, but could we get back to discussing ways to work the perceived imbalance issue from the spellcasting side?

As I stated before, I think it is a very good design strategy to spread out the spell levels to create a more interesting low level play and waning the top levels. It is important in this alteration to give the same sheer number of spells per day (or near that) so that it carries over well. Leaving the top level spells to the very tip of normal play and beyond is good. Those effects can be very game breaking and I think that they are perfect for epic level play. Or simply a scroll.

So a normal 13th level wizard or cleric gets a 7th level spell, under my proposed list they would only cast a 5th level spell. This would spread out the power curve and take the casters hyperbolic power curve and straighten it out a bit. This can only benefit those who prefer to play non-casters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And in contrast, my alteration of metamagic means a given arcanist will have fewer different spells in his arsenal if he starts learning metamagic versions, reducing his flexibility and increasing his focus...all without making him into a true Specialist.

That may not sound like much, but it means that a player who likes to beef up his PC's spells through metamagic would have correspondingly fewer options...meaning more vulnerabilities, more room for other PCs to operate. He simply can't be the man with a spell for all occasions.

 

[Sadrik]

Eldritch_Lord:
I don't dislike the rules written for the Bo9S, I just don't like the out of whack power level that simply makes all other previous martial classes look quaint and insignificant. Like I said I have played them a lot; in three different campaigns and several Con games. So I think I know what I am talking about when I say that everyone at the table feels like I am cheating and begins checking my numbers when I one-shot dragons. I really don't like that, it was a fling I repent.

When I sit down with a group I know that they are power gamers I grab for some Bo9S love. When I sit down with a group who want some honest adventuring I grab my PHB. Basically everyone has to be on the same page. If you are not stay far away from that book.

Warblade 1/wizard 5/Jade phoenix mage X
Warblade 1/Swordsage 4/Master thrower 5/Bloodstorm blade 10

Those are a couple of characters but even a Warblade/Swordsage can be absolutely broken when built for damage and has all of the little defense quirks that you think the PHB warrior types should have. I am sure you can build a balanced character but you would have to try.

If your DM allows this book have fun one-shotting monsters.

But this is a highly derailed topic. I would rather talk about the full-casters and their hyperbolic power curve and ways of getting their power curve to straighten out a bit.

 

[Sadrik]

And in contrast, my alteration of metamagic means a given arcanist will have fewer different spells in his arsenal if he starts learning metamagic versions, reducing his flexibility and increasing his focus...all without making him into a true Specialist.

That may not sound like much, but it means that a player who likes to beef up his PC's spells through metamagic would have correspondingly fewer options...meaning more vulnerabilities, more room for other PCs to operate. He simply can't be the man with a spell for all occasions.

I think he would still have the same number of spells (or near so)... The point of this is to lose some upper level power, so yeah if you are putting lower level spells into your upper level spell slots with meta magic attached and now you no longer have those uber high slots then your power curve has been tampered with. This is good for upper level play imho.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think he would still have the same number of spells (or near so)... The point of this is to lose some upper level power, so yeah if you are putting lower level spells into your upper level spell slots with meta magic attached and now you no longer have those uber high slots then your power curve has been tampered with. This is good for upper level play imho.

I think you're misunderstanding my variant slightly...

A PCs overall # of spell slots would be unchanged, but since each metamagic spell would be a new spell of the altered level, any PC using metamagically altered spells would have a narrower variety of spells in his repertoire. The brainpower he's spending on learning Maximized Magic Missile is brainpower not allocated to Polymorph.

Now, of course it doesn't affect the mage who eschews metamagic- he'll still have the full breadth of options in his bag 'o' tricks- but this will also mean that there will be a shift to using Reserve and Creation feats...because that's all those Wizard bonus feats would be good for.

IMHO, either of which is good for the game...especially if the Creation feats haven't had their XP costs HRed away as well.

 

[Runestar]

I am thinking that perhaps one solution would be to replace the wizard with the fixed-list casters like the warmage and beguiler. With a limited spell repertoire, they should no longer have the answer to anything as a standard action.

Replace cleric with cloistered cleric or healer and use the shapeshift druid variant from PHB2, so you no longer have spellcasters who double as tanks with complementary fighters (ie: animal companion).

I do think that casters and fighters should meet halfway.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

[sblock=Spoilering the off-topic ToB discussion

I don't dislike the rules written for the Bo9S, I just don't like the out of whack power level that simply makes all other previous martial classes look quaint and insignificant. Like I said I have played them a lot; in three different campaigns and several Con games. So I think I know what I am talking about when I say that everyone at the table feels like I am cheating and begins checking my numbers when I one-shot dragons. I really don't like that, it was a fling I repent.

[...]

Those are a couple of characters but even a Warblade/Swordsage can be absolutely broken when built for damage and has all of the little defense quirks that you think the PHB warrior types should have. I am sure you can build a balanced character but you would have to try.

Here's where I think we differ: You view building a "balanced" ToB character to be building one with similar capabilities to the core melee classes. I see building a "balanced" ToB character as building one that's closer to the core casters. Given that we're talking about how to bring magic and melee closer together, I'd think the latter approach would make the most sense--if you already acknowledge that magic > melee, why would you want to keep some melee characters that can almost keep up back with the rest?

Building ToB characters has the same problem as building casters when it comes to balance, ironically enough. If you're a core melee character and choose Toughness and Weapon Proficiency (siangham) as your first level feats...oh, well! You're going to suck! Conversely, the wizard can basically pick spells at random and have a negligible chance of picking a bad spell (yes, direct-damage is subpar compared to other spells, but it's not bad in a way some feats are just plain horrible). Likewise, it's hard to screw up a ToB character: pick a maneuver, and chances are it's good for you.

If your DM allows this book have fun one-shotting monsters.

Actually, I am the DM for my group. One of the main reasons I like ToB is that, while an optimized core melee character can almost always vastly outshine a ToB character in pure damage, AC, or other straight numerical comparisons, (A) the ToB character is usually more interesting/flashy and (B) the ToB character is easier to throw together quickly, both of which are good for BBEGs.

Instead, ToB takes whatever goodness the martial stances may offer the game and lock them up with particular classes. They could just as easily have used ToB to present a revised combat system for all classes modified along the lines of HERO's.

That's 4Ed, right? Nope- 4Ed locks particular martial maneuvers into particular classes. Meanwhile, under the modified HERO system, any PC could learn any maneuver. Instead of your Cleric learning Capoira, he could learn Savate. Or everyone in the party could learn Kung Fu...

Well, the issue of the universality of ToB has been raised by the devs in interviews and such, and the reasons they didn't simply revise the combat system is pretty simple: (A) people would complain that it's yet another incremental revision, and no one would buy "3.8" and, more importantly, (B) ToB was a "test run" for 4e ideas--4e combat wasn't inspired by ToB, they were testing out encounter powers to see how people liked it, hence the different disciplines (Iron Heart/Shadow Hand/Tiger Claw -> Fighter/Rogue/Ranger) and different maneuver recovery (which they ended up ignoring for 4e, but they were testing it).

There are the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats for dabbling in it if you want that. In one game, I tried out a system where anyone can take a number of maneuvers up to 1/2 your BAB (1 swappable every levle), your IL is your BAB, and you have your choice of warblade or crusader recovery. It worked out pretty well.[/sblock]

Another idea for changing spell acquisition just occurred to me--if casters progress quadratically, why not give them spell access quadratically? x²/2: 1st level spells at 1st level, 2nd level spells at 2nd level, 3rd level at 4th, 4th level at 8th, 5th level at 12th, 6th level at 18th--sort of like the bard's progression, but faster spells towards the beginning and slower towards the end. Haven't thought of the ramifications yet, but it could work for some groups who don't like the wizard's limited spells in the starting game but hate having too much toward the later levels.

 

[Sadrik]

I think you're misunderstanding my variant slightly...

A PCs overall # of spell slots would be unchanged, but since each metamagic spell would be a new spell of the altered level, any PC using metamagically altered spells would have a narrower variety of spells in his repertoire. The brainpower he's spending on learning Maximized Magic Missile is brainpower not allocated to Polymorph.

I read your house rule in this thread or another and I think it is a good one. It still doesn't change the overall focus of diminishing the quadratic power curve of the full caster. I think your house rule could easily find a home in a slowed down spell caster progression. You just won't be able to generate as high a level of spell + meta-magic effect it will be paired down at the top end. You will quicken Magic missiles not fireballs. This seems fine and is a perfect extenuation of the rules.

 

[Sadrik]

I am thinking that perhaps one solution would be to replace the wizard with the fixed-list casters like the warmage and beguiler. With a limited spell repertoire, they should no longer have the answer to anything as a standard action.

Replace cleric with cloistered cleric or healer and use the shapeshift druid variant from PHB2, so you no longer have spellcasters who double as tanks with complementary fighters (ie: animal companion).

I do think that casters and fighters should meet halfway.

Limiting utility type stuff lowers out of combat performance but does not change in combat effectiveness (think sorcerer).

I do like the idea of making everyone but the Wizard a spontaneous caster with a known spell list (its in my house rules). I think the cleric and druid along with the spell compendium simply has too many spell options at their command. Limiting this with a known spell list is good.

Another way would be to give them a "prayer book" which is simply a divine "spellbook". Either way works, perhaps, gods of knowledge and druids have prayer books and gods of destruction have spontaneous casters.